Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Singh vs D.I.O.S. & Others on 25 May, 2015
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32722 of 1994
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh
Respondent :- D.I.O.S. & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.S. Diwekar,Manoj Yadav,R.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent :- SC,Syed Ashraf
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Y.P. Singh holding brief of Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aditya Narain Tiwari, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed by the respondent no.2 on 3.7.1991 as Class IV employee, but his salary has not been paid.
Aggrieved with the action of the respondent no.2, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner and to pay arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the entire claim of the petitioner is based on fake and fictitious papers. Neither he was appointed as Class-IV employee in the institution of respondent no.2 nor there was any vacant post of Class-IV employee as on the date of the alleged appointment nor any approval was granted to the post of the petitioner. The petitioner has never worked, as stated by the Principal of the institution in his counter affidavit and as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed being solely based on false and forged papers.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
It is undisputed that there was merely eight sanctioned posts of Class-IV employee in the institution of respondent no.2, which was sanctioned vide order dated 1.6.1984. As on the alleged date of appointment on 1/3.7.1991 eight persons, namely, Sri Awadhesh Pandey, Sri Dwarika, Sri Dev Nath, Ramji Ram, Sri Kamal Yadav, Sri Surendra Ram, Sri Muni Sharma and Sri Heera Ram were working as Class-IV employee and they were duly appointed against the sanctioned class-IV posts. Thus, no sanctioned post of Class-IV employee in the institution of respondent no.2 was available as on 1.7.1991. The petitioner could not dispute that there were only eight sanctioned post of Class-IV employee. Thus, it is clear that as on the date of alleged appointment of the petitioner, there was no sanctioned post and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any salary from the State exchequer. The State Government is liable to make payment only to employees, validly appointed against sanctioned posts.
In paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 it is stated that the Principal of the institution has also intimated vide letter dated 17.4.2013, that the petitioner was never appointed in the institution in question nor the alleged approval dated 24.7.1991 is available in the records of the institution. It has also been stated that the writ petition has been filed on the basis of forged and fabricated papers. In paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit it is stated that under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, particularly, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Dubey v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj and another, reported in 1999 (1) UPLBEC-1.
In paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, it is stated that the alleged approval filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition is a forged letter and did not even disclose the date of advertisement issued for the alleged appointment. In paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit it is stated that Sri Bali Ram Singh, the then Principal of the institution was the real uncle of the petitioner.
It is further relevant to note here that the petitioner has stated in paragraph-10 of the writ petition that salary was paid to him for the period 3.7.1991 to 31.12.1991, as evident from certificate issued by the Principal of the institution on 31.7.1991 filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Perusal of this alleged certificate shows that it refers to an alleged letter of the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia of a subsequent date i.e. 13.3.1992. This clearly indicates that the said certificate dated 31.7.1991 is fabricated piece of paper.
In view of the above, it is quite clear that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner making false allegation and annexing fake papers and as such it deserves to be dismissed with costs. It may also be noted that the petitioner has received costs of Rs.5,000/- from the respondent under the orders of this Court dated 25.4.2013 due to delayed filing of the counter affidavit by them.
In view of the above discussions, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- which the petitioner shall deposit within a month with the legal Cell Authority, High Court, Allahabad.
Order Date :- 25.5.2015
Ak/
