Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam Verma vs State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic ... on 20 January, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7291 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Ashok Kumar Mishra,Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ashok Kumar Misrha, learned Counsel for the respondent no.5.
When the writ petition was entertained, this Court had passed the following orders on 18.03.2021:
"Heard Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.
Issue notice to respondent nos.4 and 5 returnable at an early date.
Steps be filed within three working days.
In case steps are taken, the office shall proceed further.
Grievance of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.6.2014 and Enquiry Committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet. After conclusion of enquiry, proposal of the committee for termination of services of the petitioner was submitted before District Basic Education Officer as required under Rule 15 of the 1978 Rules. The District Basic Education Officer disapproved the proposal of the committee for termination of service on 14.5.2019. The Committee of Management, being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No.26127 (SS) of 2019 which is lying pending consideration before this Court. During pendency of the writ petition, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 31.7.2020.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was working in a Junior High School recognized under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and the provisions of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 are applicable and service conditions of the petitioner is governed under the provisions of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984. It is the case of the petitioner that at-best in the pending writ petition, the order of approval passed by the District Basic Education Officer may be set aside and the matter shall be remanded back for consideration of proposal of the Committee of Management for termination of services.
He next submits that in regard to controversy involved in the present writ petition that whether teacher and other employees of the recognized institution retire during pendency of the disciplinary proceeding or at the level of grant of approval to proposal of termination of services, the proceeding cannot go on, he placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors O.S.F.G. & others reported in AIR 1999 SC 1841 as well as judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.16905 of 2000 (Ravindra Singh Rathore v. District Inspector of Schools and others). He next submits that the District Basic Education Officer issued several directions to the Manager of the Committee of Management to submit bills to ensure payment of salary as well as arrears of salary including the post retiral dues to the petitioner, but Finance & Accounts Officer of the office of District Basic Education Officer and Committee of Management have not taken steps to comply with the order of the District Basic Education Officer.
He next submits that the Finance & Accounts Officer of the office of District Basic Education Officer and Committee of Management are adamant not to ensure payment to the petitioner. He further submits that District Basic Education Officer and Finance & Accounts Officer have ample power in case of non-compliance of the orders issued by them to take necessary action against the Committee of Management, but the reasons best known to them, they have not initiated proceeding to ensure payment to the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submit that Finance & Accounts Officer of the office of District Basic Education Officer and Committee of Management have made all endeavour to ensure payment of dues to the petitioner but it is the Committee of Management who has not complied with the direction issued by them. They next submit that in case the Committee of Management submits the bills to ensure payment, necessary order shall be passed to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as ratio of judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioner which clearly reflects that in regard to teachers and other employees appointed in educational institution, in case during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings they retire, no proceeding can go on against them.
Here, in the present case, proposal for approval of termination of the petitioner has been disapproved which is subject-matter of challenge in the above-referred writ petition and no interim order is operating in the writ petition, therefore, at-best the order in case is set aside, the matter shall be placed before the District Basic Education Officer to consider the proposal of approval of order of termination meaning thereby the disciplinary proceeding is not concluded till date against the petitioner.
In view of the above, the petitioner has made out a case for issuance of interim mandamus.
Accordingly, respondent nos.2 to 4 are directed to ensure payment of salary as well as post-retiral dues with consequential benefits within a period of three weeks or to show cause.
List this petition after three weeks on 16.4.2021."
The Counsel for the respondents states that the papers with regard to the pension payable to be petitioner is not being processed as the petitioner has possessed several records of the institution which is not being handed over.
The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the service book in relation to the petitioner is available with the respondent which fact has admitted by the respondent no.5. Other than that it is also informed that an FIR was also registered against the petitioner.
Even assuming that fact to be correct, the pension payable to the petitioner can be stopped only in terms of the statutory conditions that allow the stopping of the pension. Merely on the allegation that the petitioner is in possession of certain register and documents of the institution, the stopping of the pension is not justified.
It is the duty of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure that pension is paid timely to the petitioner, even if, the Committee of Management is not co-operating.
It is open to the respondent no.2 to take such steps as may be advised under Rule for ensuring that the pension and other salary benefit are paid to the petitioner with all expedition. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
In view of above, the writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 20.1.2023
akverma
