Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar Srivatava And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 22 December, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8666 of 2022
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Srivatava And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health Services U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Nigam
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed on class IV posts on 15.11.2006 pursuant to a selection process. Subsequently, the services of the petitioners were terminated pursuant to the directions of the State Government against which petitioners have approached this Court by filing various writ petitions the leading bearing writ petition No.244 (S/S) of 2009 (Ram Nath Vs. State of U.P. and others) which were allowed by means of a common judgment dated 16.9.2009 whereby the orders of terminations were set aside and the opposite parties were directed to allow the petitioners to work on the respective posts forthwith and to pay them salary in accordance with law. In pursuance of the directions dated 16.9.2009 the petitioners were allowed to join and they continued to work and are working regularly on the said posts and are also receiving salary regularly. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to the payment of back wages from the date of termination i.e. 17.12.2008 till the date of their reinstatement on 17.12.2009 no orders were passed. This Court in its judgment and order dated 16.9.2009 had only quashed the order of termination and directed the respondents to allowed the petitioners to resume the duties but there is no mention with regard to back-wages. It has further been stated that some of the persons similarly situated were paid back wages from 17.12.2008 till 17.12.2009 but the petitioners were not paid any back-wages.
3. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 5/6.4.2013 passed by Chief Medical Officer, Shravasti recording the fact that certain persons have illegally and wrongly been granted salary for the period 17.12.2008 to 17.12.2009 in absence of any direction or order in this regard and consequently the money, if any, paid to such persons has been sought to be recovered. Though no recovery was sought to be made from the petitioners but because no decision has been taken by the respondents with regard to payment of back-wages is the grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition. Apart from assailing the validity and legality of the impugned order dated 5/6.4.2013 a direction has been sought against the opposite parties to pay salary to the petitioners from the date of their termination till the date of their reinstatement.
4. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that the petitioners are not adversely impacted by the impugned order in as much as they were not granted arrears of salary from the date of their termination till the date of their reinstatement in service. He admits that it is not disputed that neither the High Court in its judgment and order dated 16.9.2009 nor the opposite parties passed any order with regard to admissibility of the back-wages to the petitioners. He supports the impugned order and submits that in absence of any order in this regard it was not open for the competent authority to allow back-wages without examining each and every case individually.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. It is noticed that the terminations of the petitioners were set aside by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.9.2009 passed in a bunch of writ petitions the leading being writ petition No.244 (S/S) of 2009. While allowing the said writ petitions and setting aside the order of terminations, this Court had directed the opposite parties to allow the petitions to work and be paid salary regularly. It is further noticed that there is no mention with regard to admissibility of back wages to the petitioners consequent to setting aside of the order of termination. In these facts it seems that certain persons were granted the benefit of back-wages which order has been sought to be nullified by means of the impugned order dated 5/6.4.2013. Needless to say that it is undisputed that while allowing reinstatement the opposite parties were duty bound to pass order regarding admissibility of the back-wages. It is further noticed that in view of Rule 54 (1) to (4) of the Financial Handbook the competent authority at the stage of reinstating a delinquent employee is duty bound to pass order with regard to admissibility of back-wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner also at this stage submits that the competent authority i.e. opposite party No.6 (Chief Medical Officer, Shravasti) is duty bound to take into consideration all the factors and pass necessary orders with regard to admissibility of back-wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement in pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 16.9.2009. There is substance in the argument of the petitioner and, hence, interference is required.
7. In light of the above, the petitioners are granted liberty to to make fresh representation to opposite party No.6 within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is made the respondent No.6 shall proceed to consider and decide the issue of admissibility of back-wages to the petitioners, expeditiously, say within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioners. While deciding the issue he shall not take into consideration the order dated 5/6.4.2013 impugned by the petitioners in the present writ petition.
8. In case the petitioners are found to be entitled to the back-wages the same shall be paid to them expeditiously but not later than one month from the date the said order is passed.
9. With aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.12.2022
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
