Allahabad High Court

Smt. Indra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 December, 2015

Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
		Court No. - 1 
 

 
		Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35281 of 2014 
 

 
		Petitioner :- Smt. Indra Singh 
 
		Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others 
 
		Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Pratap 
 
		Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 
 

 
		Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Heard Sri Ravi Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri H.C. Pathak, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

On 16.11.2015, this Court passed the following order.

"On oral request learned counsel for the petitioner, Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Allahabad, is permitted to be impleaded as respondent no.5.

Heard Sri Ravi Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.C. Pathak, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

Petitioner who is widow of late Sri Veer Bahadur Singh, the then Principal in the respondent no.4 institution, has filed the present writ petition praying for the following relief:

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to release the out standing dues namely, group insurance, salary of five months seven days (24.8.2004 to 31.1.2005 medical leave) increment from January 2005 to December 2005, and arrears of six pay commission in favour of the petitioner with 12% interest very soon as Hon'ble Court may deem fit."

On 1.8.2015 this Court heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and passed the following order:

"Petitioner's husband, namely, late Veer Bahadur Singh was working as adhoc Principal in a recognised Institution, namely, B.R. Intermediate College, Haraiya, Basti, who unfortunately died in harness on 30th April, 2009 leaving behind him the petitioner (widow), two unmarried daughters and two sons. The petitioner, who is widow, has made various representations for payment of post retiral benefits of her husband. On one such representation, the District Inspector of Schools invoked his powers under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (for short, the "Act, 1971"). Aggrieved by the said order, the Committee of Management preferred a writ petition, being Writ-C No. 69390 of 2011 (C/M. B.R. Inter College Harraiya and another v. State of U.P. and others), wherein on 14th December, 2011 the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 18th November, 2011 was set aside on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred Special Appeal No. 77 of 2012 (Smt. Indra Singh v. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of on 19th January, 2012 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to consider the matter and pass necessary orders. In compliance thereof, the District Inspector of Schools has passed the order dated 10th May, 2013, whereby he has issued a positive direction to the Committee of Management to send the bill of the petitioner with regard to post retiral benefits of her husband such as Group Insurance, Medical Leave, annual increment, etc. A copy of the said direction of the District Inspector of Schools dated 10th May, 2013 is on the record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the said order of the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management has not sent the relevant papers to the office of the District Inspector of Schools. When this writ petition was filed, on 11th July, 2014 learned Standing Counsel was granted time to seek instruction in the matter. Said order of this Court was communicated to the District Inspector of Schools on 11th July, 2014 itself, but no instruction has been received by him.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is widow and for the last five years, she is making representations and filing writ petitions, however, the Committee of Management is adopting an intransigent attitude of not sending the requisite papers to the office of the District Inspector of Schools, I am satisfied that the District Inspector of Schools has failed to exercise his statutory duty conferred upon him under Section 3(3) and Section 5 of the Act, 1971. The District Inspector of Schools, in spite of the time granted, could not satisfy the Court that why the said power has not been exercised by him so far.

Thus, after careful consideration of the matter, this Court finds that since the District Inspector of Schools has issued the direction to the Committee of Management for payment of post retiral benefits and had invoked his powers under Section 3 of the Act, 1971, therefore, an interim mandamus is issued to the District Inspector of Schools, Basti, the respondent no. 3, to ensure payment of post retiral benefits of the petitioner within three months from today or show cause.

List the case after three months."

A counter affidavit of Sri Vinod Kumar, Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of D.I.O.S., Basti dated 21.11.2014 has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit the aforesaid respondent has stated as under:

"That the contents of paragraph no.15 of the writ petition as stated are not admitted. It is stated that time and again the manager of the institution in question were being directed for submitting the medical certificate of Sri Veer Bahadur Singh but the manager of the institution was always saying that Veer Bahadur Singh was not medical leave on the aforesaid period, but he was absent and Sri Singh has never submitted any medical leave application at that time. Smt. Indra Singh wife of late Veer Bahadur Singh submitted photostat copy of medical certificate to the office of answering respondent, which was sent to the manager for its sanction, the same was sent to the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti by office letter dated 30.7.2014, but since the amount to be paid to the petitioner was above Rs.1 lakh, therefore, the matter was referred to Directorate of Education, U.P. Allahabad for sanction and as soon as budget is sanctioned and received from the Directorate, the due amount shall be paid to the petitioner."

It is extremely disturbing that the petitioner who is a widow lady is running from pillar to post from about six years to get the post retiral benefits of the late husband of the petitioner but the respondent authorities are acting arbitrarily and are withholding the payment of post retiral benefits of the late husband of the petitioner. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that since the amount to be paid to the petitioner is above Rs.1 lakh and, therefore, the matter was referred to the Directorate of Education U.P. for sanction and as soon as the budget is sanctioned and received from the Directorate of Education U.P., the due amount shall be paid to the petitioner.

The Court fails to understand that why the amount has not been paid so far even after an year of the aforesaid counter affidavit dated 21.11.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and the arbitrary action of the State respondents, this Court propose to impose heavy cost on the respondent nos. 1,2,3 and 5 to be recovered from their personal salary/assets. However, before passing any order for imposition of costs, an opportunity is afforded to the respondent nos. 1,2,3 and 5 to file an affidavit explaining that why heavy cost be not imposed on them to be recovered from their personal salary/assets.

The Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Allahabad, shall file his personal affidavit showing cause on the point as indicated above.

The affidavits may be filed by the aforesaid respondents within a week.

Put up on 23.11.2015.

Let a copy of this order be issued free of cost to the learned standing counsel during the course of the day for communication to the respondents No. 1, 2 , 3 and 5."

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 filed affidavits on 23.11.2015, which were found to be unsatisfactory and as such the matter was directed

to be put up on 27.11.2015 giving one more opportunity to respondent Nos.1, 2,3 and 5 to explain that why heavy cost be not imposed on them to be recovered from their personal salary/assets, for causing harassment and monetary loss to a widow lady by unauthorisedly withholding post retirement benefits of her late husband for about six years. They were also directed to explain that why interest be not awarded on the amount illegally and unauthorisedly withheld by them and also why such amount of interest be not recovered from their personal salary/assets.

On 27.11.2015, On the request of the learned Standing Counsel, the matter was directed to be put up for today.

Today, separate affidavits of Director of Education and the Principal Secretary, Secondary Eduction, Government of U.P., Lucknow, have been filed, which are taken on record.

In paragraph Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the affidavit of respondent No.1, Principal Secretary it has been stated as under :

"7. That after coming to know about the order dated 23.11.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court, the deponent obtained the documents regarding the present dispute from the Director, Secondary Education, Government of U.P. and on the documents, made available to the deponent, the following facts are necessary to be brought before this Hon'ble Court.

8. That as the matter of the petitioner, regarding remaining dues of the husband of the petitioner was within Rs.1 lac, in accordance with the rules, it was to be approved by the Joint Director of Education, Basti, but the Regional Joint Director of Education, Basti also did not treat the matter seriously, resultantly the4 present situation took place.

9. That it may be submitted here that for the irresponsible acts, Smt. Sheel Verma, the then Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti and the present Joint Director of Education, Basti Sri Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi are guilty and also for the delay in paying the dues, the then District Inspector of Schools, Sri Ram Kripal Prasad and Sri Rajesh Arya, present District Inspector of Schools, Basti are also guilty. However, at the level of Directorate, in the present matter as a Controller, Sri Om Prakash Dwivedi, the then Joint Director of Education (Finance ) and Smt. Asha Tomar, the then Joint Director of Education (Finance ) had been looking after the matter, they were to return back the file regarding the present matter to the District Inspector of Schools/Joint Director of Education, who did not do so, as such, the Controller Sri Om Prakash Dwivedi, the then Joint Director of Eduction (Finance ) and Smt. Asha Tomar, the then Joint Director of Education (Finance ) are also guilty. However, in respect to the same, the proceeding is being initiated. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, a true copy of the office orderdated 26.11.2015 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 to this affidavit.

10. That it will not be out of place to mention here that in the Directorate of Education, Allahabad, Sri Ajay Ratan, Senior Assistant was also looking after the file of the petitioner and he was to return back the file along with his report to the District Inspector of Schools/ Joint Director of Education, who did not do so, as such, Sri Ajay Ratan, Senior Assistant is also guilty, as such, for the irresponsible act of Sri Ajay Ratan, Senior Assistant, a direction has been issued to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him."

4.

From the stand taken in the affidavit filed today by the respondent no.1, as aforequoted, it is evident that the fact with regard to illegally and unauthorisedly withholding of lawful amount due and payable to the petitioner has been admitted by the respondents and for that certain Officers have also been found prima-facie, guilty and proceedings have been initiated against them.

In paragraph-11 of the affidavit it has been stated that the dues of the husband of the petitioners amounting to Rs.1,85,195/- has been paid through e-payment on 20.11.2015 and for payment of Group Insurance, a direction was also issued to the authority concerned and in compliance thereof a Cheque No.900939 dated 28.11.2015 has been issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,16,650/-. This amount has been paid after it was sanctioned by the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

The fact that the entire post retirement dues of late husband of the petitioner has now been paid, is undisputed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by order dated 27.11.2015, this Court directed the respondents to explain that why interest be not awarded on the amount illegally and unauthorisedly withheld and why such amount be not recovered from the personal salary/assets of the respondents. The respondents were also directed to explain that why heavy cost be not imposed upon them. It is submitted that no explanation has been offered in this regard. He, therefore submits that since illegal withholding of the lawful amount due and payable to the petitioners is undisputed and the same was withheld for more than six years without any fault on the part of the petitioner widow lady and as such interest should have also been paid by the respondents.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that appropriate action has already been initiated against the officers found prima-facie guilty of delaying the payment and, therefore, no further direction is required to be issued in this regard. To this extent I agree with the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General. However, the fact that the petitioner is a widow lady and the lawful amount due and payable to her was illegally and unauthorisedlly withheld by the respondent authorities responsible for payment thereof and as such applying the principles of restitution and equity, simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded to the petitioner which the respondents shall pay to her within one month from today.

Considering the facts that the respondent no.1 has already initiated action against the erring officers, who were prima-facie, found guilty and as such no further direction is required to be issued in this regard. However, the Court hopes and trusts that the proceedings directed to be initiated against the erring officers shall be carried to its logical ends.