Vedavati vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2751 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Court No. - 88
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14873 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Vedavati
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
 
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and perused the material available on record.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief (s):-

(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Jaunpur (Respondent No.4) to extend the benefit of Judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others) in favour of the petitioner.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Jaunpur (Respondent No.4) to take immediate steps for releasing arrears of salary in favour of Petitioner for the period 1st July, 2015 up till 20.11.2015 within a specific period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

(III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Jaunpur (Respondent No.4) to grant the benefit of annual increment due in July, 2015; benefit of 7th Pay commission due in January, 2016 and Bonus for the year 2015-16 in favour of Petitioner within a specific period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

(IV) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Jaunpur (Respondent No.4) to take immediate steps to consider and decide the representation dated 18.02.2020 (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) within a specific period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

(V) Issue any other and further suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case.

(VI) Award cost of the Writ Petition."

Insofar as the factual background of this writ petition is concerned, the petitioner, namely Smt. Vedavati was working as Head Mistress, Prathmik Vidyalaya, Bhivraha Kala, Block Khuthan, District - Jaunpur before her retirement which was due on 30.06.2015. The petitioner worked as such till June, 2015 without any objection from the authorities. The work and the conduct of the petitioner was found to be satisfactory by the authorities concerned. In between the period, the academic session stood altered by way of Government Order dated 09.12.2014. As a sequel to that, the new academic session commenced from 1st April of the year following the succeeding year till 31st March. Meaning thereby that the teachers, who were scheduled to be retired at the end of the academic session, which was earlier 30th June, were to retire on 31st March of the year because of the aforesaid prevailing government order (09.12.2014), copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. The Government Order dated 09.12.2014 is extracted hereinbelow :-

 
"m0iz0 csfld f'k{kk fu;se o vkns'k laxzg
 
lUnfHkZr 'kklukns'k
 
isz"kd]					   lsok esa]
 
	,p0,y0 xqIrk					f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½
 
	lfpo]							  m0iz0 y[kuÅA
 
	m0iz0'kkluA
 
f'k{kk vuqHkkx &5				   y[kuÅ % fnukad 09 fnlEcj] 2014
 
	fo"k; % csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn] m0iz0 }kjk lapkfyr fo|ky;ksa rFkk ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky;ksa esa o"kZ 2015&16 esa 'kSf{kd l= ifjoRkZu rFkk fo|ky; le; ifjorZu ds lEcU/k esaA
 
egksn;]
 

mi;qZDr fo"k;d vius i= la[;k&cs0f'[email protected]@[email protected]&15] fnukad 14 uoEcj] 2014 dk d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djsa ftlds }kjk ifj"knh; [email protected] izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa ,oa v'kkldh; ekU;rk izkIr ¼lgk;rk izkIr ,oa xSj lgk;rk izkIr½ [email protected] izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa 'kSf{kd l= ifjorZu rFkk fo|ky; le; ifjorZu & lEcU/k esa izLrko iszf"kr fd;k x;k gSA

2- bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd vki }kjk izsf"kr izLrko ij lE;d fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd ifj"knh; [email protected] izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa ,oa v'kkldh; ekU;rk izkIr ¼lgk;rk izkIr ,oa xSj lgk;rk izkIr½ [email protected] izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa vkxkeh 'kSf{kd l= 2015&16 ls iwjs o"kZ ds fy, fnukad 01 vizSy ls 31 ekpZ rd dk 'kSf{kd l= j[kk tk;s rFkk fo|ky; le; iwokZUg 9%00 cts ls vijkUg 3%00 cts rd j[kk tk;sA

3- ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd xzh"e vodk'k iwoZ dh Hkakfr 21 ebZ ls 30 twu rd j[kk tk;s rFkk 'kSf{kd l= fnukad 01 vizSy ls 31 ekpZ rd djus dk izHkko fo|ky; izos'k] Nk=&Nk=kvksa dh d{kksUufr] fo|ky; lapkyu vkfn rd lfefr jgsxkA f'k{kdksa ds 30 twu rd l=kUr ykHk ij 'kSf{kd l= ifjorZu dk dksbZ izHkko ugha ekuk tk;sxk rFkk f'k{kdksa dks l=kUr ykHk iwoZ dh Hkkafr vuqeU; jgsaxsA

4- d`i;k rn~uqlkj ;Fkksfpr fn'kk&funsZ'k vius Lrj ls fuxZr djrs gq, fy, x, fu.kZ;kuqlkj ;Fkko';d dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djus dk d"V djasA

Hkonh;

¼,p0,y0xqIrk½] lfpoA"

The date of birth of the petitioner is 17.06.1953. The petitioner was entitled to work as per her date of birth up to 31st March, 2016. The authorities concerned gave no heed to her earnest appeal, therefore, a number of other petitioners also approached this High Court by filing different petitions, regarding the claim of release of arrears of salary for the extended/altered academic session in view of the government order as aforesaid.

Initially, an interim order was also passed in a number of writ petitions on 30.06.2015, while entertaining the writ petitions, wherein similarly situated teachers were allowed to continue in service till the end of the academic session i.e. 31.03.2016 and they were directed to be paid salary for the period. The petitioner has also described the various aspects of the case which led to the passing of various orders under similar circumstances in favour of the various petitioners, which run in a number of paragraphs. However, after engaging the attention of this Court to the  Writ A - No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others), Annexure No.7 to this writ petition, it has been claimed that similarly circumstanced basic teachers in the similar and identical nature of the present case, have been granted relief (as sought) by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the operative portion of the judgement of co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Writ A - No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others) on 19.08.2017 is extracted here under:-

"Applying these principles on the facts of the present case, I find that the petitioners in terms of the change of the academic session, when admittedly their dates of superannuation fall during the academic session i.e. 01st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2016 as their dates of birth are 01.07.1953, 01.06.1953, 01.05.1953, 03.05.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953 and 15.05.1953 respectively, they were entitled for the sessional benefit and to continue upto 31st March, 2016. There was no fault on their part as they were not allowed to work after 30th June, 2015. A specific direction was issued not to allow them to continue beyond 30th June, 2015. The said direction, as mentioned above, was manifestly erroneous and contrary to the well settled practice and the relevant Rules to give the session benefit to such teachers whose date of superannuation falls during the academic session. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 08th October, 2015 rectifying the said mistake, hence the Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 that the teachers who were allowed to continue after the judgment of Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra) and the Government Order dated 08th October, 2015, will not be paid salary from 30th June, 2015 till their rejoining is arbitrary and unreasonable. When the Government itself had issued an order dated 08th October, 2015, there was no justification to issue the impugned order dated 02nd May, 2017, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra). As noted above, the Division Bench has declared the Government Order dated 15th June, 2015 illegal.

Regard may be had to the fact that on the basis of the said order, the petitioners were denied sessional benefits. Once the said order was set aside, the petitioners became entitled to continue. The respondents have also allowed the petitioners to rejoin their position.

Therefore, in the said background and on a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The petitioners are entitled for their salary from 30th June, 2015 till the date of their rejoining. Ordered accordingly.

Thus, the writ petition stands allowed.

No order as to costs."

Also heard the learned counsel for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5.

After going through the various aspects of this case, it is obvious that the principles laid down in the  Writ A - No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others), Annexure No.7 of the writ petition is very much applicable in this case, therefore, the same is acted upon and followed in this judgment/order in toto. 

In view of above, respondent no.4 is directed to follow the parameters and principles of the judgment and order as laid down in Writ A - No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others) in letter and spirit as the same judgment/order passed in the aforesaid petition is very much applicable in the case of the present petitioner, as well.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

No order as to cost.

Order Date :- 22.2.2021

S Rawat