Allahabad High Court
Vishweshwar Nath Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17046 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vishweshwar Nath Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Ji Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to direct the respondent no.1 to take immediate steps for payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner from 01.07.2015 to 31.03.2016.
It is admitted between the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been settled by this Court in a writ petition being Writ-A No. 33360 of 2017, (Angad Yadav And 7 Others Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others) decided on 19.08.2017. Against the aforesaid order, Special Appeal being Special Appeal No.505/2018 (Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and others Vs. Angad Yadav and others) which was dismissed by this Court vide its judgement and order dated 19.08.2017. The operative portion of the Angad Yadav (supra) case is reproduced below:-
"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."
So far as the factual and legal aspects, the same are not being disputed by learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the contesting-respondents.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of Angad Yadav (supra).
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
pks
