Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anju Dixit vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 July, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5529 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Anju Dixit
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raghvendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
This petition has been preferred seeking following reliefs:-
"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri (Annexure No.3 to this writ petition).
II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful functioning of the petitioner in the institution in question and pay regular salary month by month."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic School at Etah, run and managed by the U.P. Basic Education Board on 17.04.1999. She was transferred to District Mainpuri on 14.8.2000, and since then, she has been working at District Mainpuri. On 16.9.2008 she was promoted as Headmistress in Junior Basic School. In the year 2019 she was posted as Headmistress of the Junior Basic School, Udna Danda, Mainpuri. By the Government order dated 22.11.2018 the State Government has decided to merge the Junior Basic Schools as well as the Senior Basic Schools, if they are situated and being run in the same campus, which is called as composite institution. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government order dated 22.11.2018 as well as Circular dated 14.3.2019, the petitioner's institution was also declared as composite institution by the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri, whereas the same is not situated in the same campus. Against the said declaration, the petitioner moved a representation before the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri on 21.06.2019 but the same was not entertained. The petitioner has been continuously performing her duties and there was no complaint against her. The Block Education Officer, Karhal has forwarded a report to the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri on 01.01.2021. On the basis of the aforesaid ex-parte report, the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpur has passed the impugned order on 15.1.2021, whereby salary of the petitioner has been withheld and she has been asked to submit her explanation as to why she has not made her signatures in the register of the composite institution. The order impugned is an ex parte order passed upon the report submitted by the Block Education Officer, Karhal. The action is unsustainable in view of the provisions contained in U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgement and order dated 06.12.2018 passed in Writ - A No.20933 of 2004 (Sunil Kumar & ors vs. State of UP and others), which reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for state-respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 29.03.02014 passed by District Basic Education Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'DBEO') as well as that of Finance and Accounts Officer (Basic Education), which are Annexures 7 and 8 to present writ petition, whereby payment of salary to petitioners has been stopped.
3. Petitioners were Assistant Teachers in Sardar Patel Junior High School, Pilakhuwa, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'School') and getting salary, but by means of impugned order dated 29.03.2014 same has been stopped.
4. Initially, District Magistrate issued certain directions whereupon DBEO issued order dated 29.03.2004 stopping salary to petitioners, pursuant whereto Finance and Accounts Officer (Basic Education) issued letter dated 29.03.2004.
5. It is submitted that there is no provision under which payment of salary of petitioners can be stopped by District Magistrate or under his order. There is no suspension or termination of petitioners as such, there is no provision to stop payment of their salary.
6. When questioned, learned Standing Counsel could not show any provision under which such an order stopping payment of salary to petitioners can be passed validly by respondents.
7. In view thereof, this writ petition allowed. Impugned order dated 29.03.2014, Anexures 7 to the writ petition, is hereby set aside."
So far as the factual and legal aspect of the matter is concerned, the same is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that so far as factual position is concerned, it is admitted that there is no provision under which salary of petitioner could be stopped by the authority as there is no suspension or termination of the petitioner and as such the impugned notice is unsustainable. Present matter is squarely covered by the judgment in Sunil Kumar & Ors. (Supra).
In the facts and circumstances, the impugned show cause notice dated 15.1.2021 cannot sustain and the same is set aside.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri is directed to proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law.
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 Court/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 :- 7.7.2021
Atul/RKP/SP/
