Allahabad High Court
Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Education ... on 31 July, 2023
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50210
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6059 of 2006
Petitioner :- Kanhaiya Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Education And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Moti Chand Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Rai, learned Additional CSC for respondent - State.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has made following prayer:
"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus the opposite party No.3 to pay the salary of the petitioner forthwith.
ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider for regular appointment of the petitioner and pay him salary each and every month regularly with back wages for which the petitioner is legally entitled.
iii) to issue any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv) to allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner."
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Clerk in District Library, Sitapur and his work and conduct has always been found satisfactory to the respondents. On the engagement of employees on Class-IV category, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.2767 (M/S) of 1996, which was finally disposed of with following direction:
"In these circumstances it is provided that if respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been engaged the petitioner shall also be engaged on daily wages on the minimum wages Act. It is also provided that if in future State Government creates any post of Library Assistant / Clerk in pursuance to the Govt. Order contained in Annexure No.2 to the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner's case for appointment shall be considered sympathetically giving due weightage to his past services in the Library.
With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of finally."
4. The respondents allowed the petitioner to discharge duties on the post of Clerk and since then, he is discharging duties but till date no salary has been paid to him by the respondents. The petitioner preferred the representation before the District Magistrate, on which the District Magistrate issued a direction for payment of salary. The petitioner again moved a representation to the respondents to pay his salary.
5. When, the respondents did not follow the judgment and order dated 13.05.1993, the petitioner again filed Writ Petition No.6568 (S/S) of 1999, which was finally decided on 21.12.1999. Respondent No.3 sent a letter to Education Director (Madhyamik) Camp Office, Lucknow on 17.06.2006 for appointment of Class IV employee and Assistant Librarian. The petitioner is still working on the post of Assistant Librarian / Clerk regularly and is liable to be appointed on regular post. Due to non appointment of the petitioner on regular post, he has preferred the present writ petition.
6. This Court while entertaining the writ petition has passed an order on 20.07.2006, which is being quoted below:
"......................................
In the above circumstances, it is provided that in case the opposite parties are taking work from the petitioner, there is no occasion for the opposite parties not to pay the salary to the petitioner. The District Magistrate will verify the working of the petitioner and in case it is established that the petitioner is working, he will be paid his salary within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him."
7. The petitioner is making representations regularly but no order whatsoever has been passed for his regular appointment nor he has been paid salary in compliance of the judgment and order passed by this Court and interim order granted on 20.07.2006. The representations filed by the petitioner are lying pending consideration before respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Sitapur.
8. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case direction is issued to respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order, ends of justice would be met. He submitted that there is no justification on the part of respondents in sitting tight over the matter and in not passing the order on the representation filed by the petitioner for regular appointment.
9. He lastly submitted that the act and action of respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Sitapur in keeping the matter pending is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC submitted that in case the claim setup by the petitioner is lying pending consideration before respondent No.2, the same shall be considered and appropriate reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within a reasonable period.
11. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
12. On perusal, it is established that on 15.03.1999, this Court passed an order that if respondent Nos.2&3 have been engaged, the petitioner shall also be engaged on daily wages on the minimum wages Act. It was also provided that if in future State Government creates any post of Library Assistant / Clerk in pursuance to the Govt. Order contained in Annexure No.2 to the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner's case for appointment shall be considered sympathetically giving due weightage to his past services in the Library. The said judgment and order has not been complied till date.
13. While entertaining the present writ petition, this Court provided that in case the opposite parties are taking work from the petitioner, there is no occasion for the opposite parties not to pay the salary to the petitioner. The District Magistrate will verify the working of the petitioner and in case it is established that the petitioner is working, he will be paid his salary within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
14. This order has also not been complied with by the District Magistrate, Sitapur - respondent No.2 till date.
15. In view of foregoing reasons, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive representation before respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Sitapur within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is filed within aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and appropriate reasoned and speaking order shall be passed thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 31.7.2023
Adarsh K Singh
