Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam Vishwakarma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 29 July, 2021
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7654 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Vishwakarma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Chand
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri K.K. Chand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5.
The controversy involved in this writ petition has been decided by this Court in Writ-A No.33360/2017; Angad Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P. and others against which Special Appeal No.505/2018; Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and others Vs. Angad Yadav and others was preferred which was decided on 11.12.2018, whereby the special appeal was dismissed.
The petitioners retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016 from the post of Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School, Tikar, Block Dakor, District Jalaun.
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"I. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Jalaun (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 Jalaun (Respondent No.4) to take immediate steps for releasing arrears of salary in favour of the petitioners for the period 1st July, 2015 up till 22.10.2015 (Date of rejoining) 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 Jalaun (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 the 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 Jalaun (Respondent No.4) to take immediate steps to consider and decide the Representation dated 18.11.2020 (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 circumstances of the case.
VI. Award cost of the Writ Petition."
This Court on 19th August, 2017 in an identical writ petition, being Writ-A No. 33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others), which was filed by the similarly placed persons challenging the same impugned order and seeking similar and identical relief, has passed a detailed judgment and order allowing the writ petition. The operative portion of the judgment reads as 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."
I have heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri K.K.Chand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5. They agree that the facts of the present petition are identical to that of Angad Yadav (supra) and this writ petition may also be decided in the same terms.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is also allowed in terms of judgment of this Court in Angad Yadav (supra).
Order Date :- 29.7.2021
SKM
