Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25024 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- District Inspector Of School, Gautam Budh Nagar, And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
It appears that petitioners had earlier approached this court by filing Writ A No. 62448 of 2008, which has been disposed of vide following orders passed on 21.05.2018:-
"The petitioner is directed to move appropriate application/representation to the District Inspector of Schools through the Committee of Management for payment of salary as claimed, within a period of six weeks from today and the same shall be considered and disposed of by the third respondent within further period of six weeks after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of."
Petitioners have represented pursuant to the aforesaid observations made by this Court and their claim stands rejected under the order impugned dated 22.09.2018. The order records that petitioners have neither worked from April, 1999 to December, 2008, nor have signed on the attendance register. Claim for release of arrears, accordingly, stands rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of this Court to the attendance register upto the month of October, 1999, in which petitioners are shown to have signed the attendance register. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioners were not permitted to sign on the attendance register and that, the attendance was recorded in separate register.
Upon a pointed query raised to the counsel for the petitioner, as to whether any educational authority had permitted the petitioners to sign on a separate attendance register, the reply of the learned counsel is in negative. There is, otherwise, no material on record to show that the petitioners have worked for all this period. The finding returned in the order of the Inspector, that the petitioners have actually not worked for all such period, therefore, is not liable to be interfered with, except to the extent the petitioners have actually signed on the attendance register, which is upto the month of October, 1999.
In the facts and circumstances noticed above, it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition permitting the petitioners to place before the Inspector concerned the attendance register upto the month October, 1999 of the Institution concerned where they have signed, along with other teaching and non-teaching staff. The Inspector shall examine the same and would pass a fresh order, in that regard. It is also clarified that even if salary, for the month of November, 1999 to 21st December, 2008, is denied to the petitioners, yet this period would be counted while determining the continuous working, particularly, as there was a serious issue raised as to whether the petitioners had been allowed to work by the Committee of Management. In absence of a positive evidence to establish the working, the salary may be denied, but continuity would have to be given to the petitioner.
The required consideration would be made by the Inspector, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioners salary, etc. would also be fixed, accordingly.
Subject to the aforesaid modifications/observations, the order impugned dated 22.09.2018 is affirmed.
The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Amit Mishra