Allahabad High Court
Dhanraj Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic ... on 27 August, 2021
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1696 of 2017
Petitioner :- Dhanraj Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt. Lucknow & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vashu Deo Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ghaus Beg
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Vashu Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.
By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief :
"1. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.09.2016 passed by District Basic Education Bahraich, contained in annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the opposite parties to pay the arrears of salary for the period 01.07.2015 to 30.11.2015 for the post of Head Master Junior High School Islamabad Block Jarwal District Bahraich."
It has been informed at the Bar that the controversy in question has been set at rest up to the Apex Court inasmuch as the judgment and order dated 24.3.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2017 has been upheld by the Apex Court vide order dated 3.7.2018. Therefore, the present writ petition is being disposed of in terms of aforesaid order.
Sri Ghaus Beg has fairly submitted that since the controversy in question has been finally settled, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period 01.07.2015 to 30.11.2015. For the convenience the judgment and order dated 24.3.2017 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2017 is being reproduced herein below:
"We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State and Sri Manish Mishra also for the respondents no. 3 to 5.
The appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2015 to the limited extent of the extension of benefit of the salary to the appellant only for the period he has actually worked. Learned counsel submits that this recital in the judgment is not in consonance with law, inasmuch as, once the entitlement of the appellant till the end of session was covered by the decision dated 29.10.2015 and the subsequent decision dated 12.10.2015, copies whereof have been filed on record, then in that event the learned Single Judge was not justified in extending the benefit of payment of salary only for the period for which he has worked because as there was no fault on the part of the appellant and it was the respondents who had prevented the appellant from discharging his duties.
Learned counsel submits that this issue was also considered in the appeal filed by the State in Special Appeal Defective No. 103 of 2017 decided by this Bench dated 8.3.2017, copy of that judgment is on record as Annexure no. 6 to this appeal. The consequential orders that had been issued for payment of salary to the other teachers similarly placed dated 8.10.2015 as well as the directions issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad on 6.1.2016 has also been brought on record.
Thus, on a conspectus of the aforesaid facts we are of the considered opinion that denial of payment of full salary for the entire period to the appellant would be discriminatory on the ground that he had not actually worked for a short period in between. The work of the appellant had been impeded on account of the act of the respondents, therefore, there is no rationale to deny salary to the appellant.
Consequently, we partly allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 14.11.2015 in so far as it allows salary only for the period the appellant had actually worked. We direct that the appellant shall be entitled to his entire salary and all such benefits till the end of session to which he was entitled to continue. In the event any payment has been made subsequent to the decision by the State Government dated 8.10.2015 then in that event any arrears of salary which has not been paid that fell due shall be released within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."
The order dated 3.7.2018 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 26614 of 2017 is being reproduced herein below :
"In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Consequently, the special leave petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that the impugned order passed by the High Court not to be treated as precedent in any other case.
Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of."
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and also the judgment and order dated 24.3.2017 in re: Babadin Yadav (supra) I hereby find that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in re: Babadin Yadav (supra) has decided the identical controversy and said judgment is being followed in other similar case, as informed at the Bar so I am following the said decision of the High Court on merits. Besides, the said judgment has been upheld by the Apex Court on 3.7.2018, so I hereby allow the writ petition.
A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 20.9.2016 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Bahraich, Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition.
A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to pay the arrears of salary for the period 01.07.2015 to 30.11.2015 for the post of Head Master Junior School, Islamabad, Block Jarwal, District Bahraich within a period of two months failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for the penal interest on the delayed payment as per current market rate.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.8.2021
Om
(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)
