Allahabad High Court
Jai Narayan Shastri vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 19 July, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?`Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143224
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11482 of 2023
Petitioner :- Jai Narayan Shastri
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Krishna,J.P. Singh,Shivam Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Narayan Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondents 1 to 4.
In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the fifth respondent.
The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) in the fifth respondent institution, Baldeo Arya Kanya Inter College, Moradabad and approval was granted on 28.6.1972 however on 5.9.1972 the services were terminated pursuant whereto preferred an appeal which is claimed to have been allowed on 6.11.1973 and the writ petitioner assumed the charge on 12.2.1974 and retired on 30.6.1996. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that despite various correspondences the claim of the writ petitioner for the grant of selection grade as a Lecturer has not been considered till date.
Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to grant pay scale of Lecturer from 20.06.1972 till the date of his retirement and refix and revise the pension accordingly and in alternative to decide the representation dated 30.4.2019.
Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has in order to buttress his submission that relied upon judgement in the case of M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others (1995) 5 SCC 628.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the writ petition has barred by inordinate delay and latches further it is the stale claims which cannot be considered at this stage however according to him since the District Inspector of Schools, fourth respondent is already ceased of the matter as the recommendation has been submitted by the fifth respondent on 25.1.2019 thus a conscious decision will be taken. He has further pointed out page 40 so as to contend that there a communication of the Director to the Regional Level Committee, Moradabad dated 19.2.2021. According to learned Standing Counsel they do not propose to file any response to the writ petition.
Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of without seeking any response from the respondents granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad, who shall on the receipt of the same, the fourth respondent shall decide the claim of the petitioner after putting to notice to fifth respondent strictly in accordance with law in the light of the fact that whether the claim of the writ petitioner is barred or not even otherwise as per the statute or not and in accordance with the judgment in the case of M.R. Gupta (Supra) within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.
Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided on exparte version without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 19.7.2023
piyush
