Allahabad High Court
Shailendra Kumar Singh Tomar vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10285 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Singh Tomar
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Suryabhan Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
The present writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears of salary from 2003 to 2010 forthwith.
Submission is that the petitioner was accorded compassionate employment on 13.6.2003 as Class-III employee. Finally, the dispute was resolved by the judgment and order dated 25.8.2009 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in leading Writ A No. 41848 of 2003 (Nitin Kumar Tripathi Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat and others) including two other writ petition i.e. Writ Petition Nos. 20537 of 2004 and 9771 of 2006 were also decided.
Aggrieved with the said judgment and order, an Special Appeal (Defective) No. 11 of 2010 (State of U.P. through Secretary, Education Dept. and others Vs. Shailendra Kumar Singh Tomar and another) was preferred and the prayer for interim relief was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.1.2010. Finally, the said special appeal came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgement and order dated 12.10.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in this backdrop states that admittedly the petitioner was accorded appointment under dying in harness rules. Challenge to the writ court order was also made by preferring special appeal. Furthermore, the special appeal was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 12.10.2017. He submits that admittedly in response to the writ court order, salary of the petitioner was ensured since 2010 but arrears of the salary has not been ensured.
Sofaras the challenge to the judgement and order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court, therefore, direction may be issued for ensuring arrears of salary.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that at this belated stage, the claim of the petitioner regarding arrears of salary cannot be ensured.
Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner has been made under Dying in Harness Rules in the year 2003 against a substantive post. Sofaras the challenge to the appointment and other issue is concerned, the same had already been kept at rest by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgement and order dated 12.10.2017.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that arrears of salaryfrom 2003 to 2010 cannot be denied to the petitioner. No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the Regional Joint Director, Kanpur Region, Kanpur to take final decision in the matter strictly in accordance with law within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order but certainly after bearing in mind the observation made herein above.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021
Jaswant
