Allahabad High Court
Ashutosh Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 March, 2019
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2193 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ashutosh Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal,Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
On 26.2.2019 following order was passed :-
"It is contented on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner along with one Anurag Tiwari filed Writ A No. 45039 of 2017 (Anurag Tiwari and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). In the said writ petition on 6.10.2017 following order was passed-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
In the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek following relief:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3/Finance and Account Officer, in the office of Basic Education Officer, District Deoria to release the salary of petitioners in pursuance of the financial approval order dated 30.5.2017 passed by respondent no. 2/District Basic Education Officer, Deoria regularly every month and also disburse arrears of salary from 1.8.2015 till date."
It is submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court, though the order dated 6th July 2017 has been passed directing release of the salary of the petitioners, who were appointed as Assistant Teachers, but till date salary has not been released in their favour. It has been further submitted that the matter is pending before the third respondent Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of Basic Education Officer, District Deoria.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is directed that the third respondent Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of Basic Education Officer, District Deoria shall appear along with the records of the case on 27th of October 2017 and explain as to why till date the order dated 6.7.2017 has not been complied with.
Subsequently, in the aforesaid case another order was passed on 27.10.2017 which is quoted below-
"Pursuant to order dated 6 October 2017, the third respondent is present and has filed personal affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that salary of the petitioner has been released, however, for arrears, vide communication dated 24.10.2017, Director Basic Education, Allahabad, was requested to provide budget for Rs.26,65,434/-. Arrears shall be released upon receiving the budget.
In the circumstances, petitioner has rendered infructuous. In the event, arrears is not paid to the petitioner within reasonable time, it is open for the petitioner to approach this Court.
Presence of the officer is exempted
The writ petition is dismissed having become infructuous."
It is contented in para 32 of the writ petition that respondent No.3 in the present writ petition- Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of Basic Eduction Officer, Deoria paid entire arrears of salary in so far Anurag Tiwari is concerned who was petitioner no. 1 in the above writ petition but so far petitioner is concerned certain arrears are still due.
In view of the same prayer is made in the writ petition to issue Mandamus directing respondent no. 3 to disburse the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period from 1.8.2015 to 31.8.2017 along with interest @ 18% per year.
The matter appears to be very serious.
Vide order dated 27.10.2017, respondent no. 3 was directed to make arrears of salary to the petitioner within a reasonable time.
In the opinion of the Court, the reasonable time has already lapsed. Apart from the same a discriminatory method has been adopted by the respondents by making payment of arrears of salary only in respect of Anurag Tiwari while the order was passed in respect of two persons.
After the aforesaid arguments a request was made by Sri Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel representing respondent no. 2 and 3 to grant some time to seek instructions in the matter.
As prayed, put up this case on 12.3.2019 in the additional cause list.
The Court hope and trust that before the next date fixed in the matter the respondent will make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner as has been done in case of Anurag Tiwari."
Today when the matter was taken up Mr. Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 placed instructions received by him, the same is taken on record. It is stated in the comments that due to the fact that bills and other relevant papers were not provided by the Manager/Principal of the institution in question, the respondents are not in a position to make the arrears of salary to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order dated 27.10.2017 passed in Writ A No.45039 of 2017, which is reproduced below:-
"Pursuant to order dated 6 October 2017, the third respondent is present and has filed personal affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that salary of the petitioner has been released, however, for arrears, vide communication dated 24.10.2017, Director Basic Education, Allahabad, was requested to provide budget for Rs.26,65,434/-. Arrears shall be released upon receiving the budget.
In the circumstances, petitioner has rendered infructuous. In the event, arrears is not paid to the petitioner within reasonable time, it is open for the petitioner to approach this Court.
Presence of the officer is exempted.
The writ petition is dismissed having become infructuous."
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier proceedings the stand has been taken that since the budget was not allocated it is not possible for the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary and now the different view has been taken by the respondents that salary bills and other relevant papers were not provided by the Manager/Principal of the institution in question. It is the duty of the respondents namely District Basic Education Officer as well as Finance and Account Officer in the office of District Basic Education Officer to make the payment of salary as well as arrears of salary to the teachers and employees working in the institution in question. A complete procedure has been prescribed under the Rules that in case the necessary papers and documents were not provided by the institution the action be taken against the institution by the aforesaid authorities.
In view of the same, a request has been made by Mr. Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 to grant him time to file counter affidavit.
As prayed two weeks' time is granted to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within three days, thereafter.
Put up on 30.3.2019 in the additional cause list.
Order Date :- 13.3.2019
Pramod Tripathi
