Smt. Vimla Devi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6349 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8925 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Vimla Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Kumar Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3.

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents to release arrears of salary due to the petitioner for the post of Headmaster of the institution in question for the period 01.07.2015 to 28.11.2015.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner superannuated from the post of Headmaster in the institution concerned on 30.06.2015. Her services, however were extended in terms of letter dated 23.10.2015 by the District Basic Education Officer, Mau and in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.3653(S/S) of 2015 (Ramesh Chandra Tiwari & others v. State of U.P. and others) as well as following the Government Order dated 08.10.2015. It is submitted that despite the fact that the petitioner continued on the post of Headmaster due to extension of her services, for the period 01.07.2015 to 28.11.2015, she has not been paid salary.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, this Court has passed directions vide judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 passed in Writ - A No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others). It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court. For the said grievance, petitioner had earlier submitted representation but seeks liberty to file a fresh representation.

Learned counsel for petitioner at present restricts his prayer for a direction to the respondents to consider and decide petitioner's representation.

Considering the innocuous prayer, without adverting to merits of the case, liberty is granted to petitioner to make fresh representation before respondent No.3 i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Mau. In case such a representation is filed, the same is required to be decided expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order, taking into account the judgment and order rendered in Angad Yadav(supra), in case the same is applicable upon the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order along with fresh representation is produced before the said authority.

With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 8.7.2022

kvg/-