Allahabad High Court
Jai Prakash Upadhyay vs District Basic Education Officer ... on 24 April, 2014
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 66276 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Upadhyay
Respondent :- District Basic Education Officer & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Bhardwaj
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2,3 and 4. Notice was issued to respondent no. 5 which is deemed to be sufficient.
The payment of salary to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher was stopped on the strength of two orders dated 7.3.2011 and 31.10.2011 passed by respondent nos. 1 and 3 respectively.
Admittedly, the salary was paid to the petitioner since July 1985 till April, 2010. In view of some Government orders , the matter as regards actual strength of teachers who became entitled to the payment of regular salary against sanctioned strength of teachers came to be considered, it was found that the petitioner's claim did fall within requisite strength of sanctioned posts . Although, the petitioner has been working and was paid salary regularly as per last salary bill of the Committee of Management submitted at the time when the institution was brought under grant-in-aid, the impugned orders were passed when the matter was under consideration and Government Policy was contrary to the interest of the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, Government Order dated 31.1.2013 has been issued by the State Government whereby benefit of salary has been extended to all the teachers whose names were mentioned in last salary bill of the Committee of Management. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been working and was granted regular salary consequent upon the institution being brought under grant-in -aid. The Government order squarely covers the grievance of the petitioner. There is no reason as to why payment of regular salary may not be made to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the impugned order dated 7.3..2011 and 31.1.2013, consequent upon the issuance of Government Order dated 31.1.2013 stand superceded . The claim of the petitioner is to be considered in terms of fresh Government Order dated 31.1.2013.
The petitioner is directed to make a representation before respondent no.1 within a period of 15 days from today. If such a representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferable within a period two month from the date of making the representation along with a certified copy of this order before respondent no. 1.
With these observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.4.2014
aks
(Attau Rahman Masoodi J. )
