Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar Singh And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:36993
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6391 of 2019
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Higher Edu. Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Kumar Tripathi, Pradeep Kumar Tripathi,Sachindra Pratap Singh,Shachindra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel, learned counsel for the Committee of Management and Sri S. P. Singh the counsel for the University.
2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"(i) To, issue writ of Mandamus to the Respondent No 2, to make payment of the current and future salary and the arrears of salary in terms of appointment of the Petitioner in pursuance of the approval of the selection of the Petitioners by the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent No. 3 and communicated vide order dated 04.09.17 (Annexure No. 18);
ii) To issue, appropriate writ declaring the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 dated 11.09.17 (Annexure No. 20), being without jurisdiction and nullity."
3. The neat contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the statutory provisions, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Vice Chancellor and the said order has neither been recalled nor challenged and thus has attained finality. He argues that the respondent no.2, by means of a communication dated 11.09.2017, sought the recall of the approval granted by the Vice Chancellor, however, it is informed that the same has been rejected by the Vice Chancellor. Thus, the admitted position on record is that the appointment of the petitioner stood approved by the Vice Chancellor and has attained finality.
4. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court passed in Writ A No.21951 of 2017 (Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 13.03.2018 wherein a Division Bench of this Court had considered the statutory provisions and had held that no provisions could be shown authorizing the State Government to grant any approval after the order is passed by the Vice Chancellor.
5. The counsel for the respondents, the Committee of Management, argues that the petitioner is not working and as such, is not entitled to salary.
6. In the present case also, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any further approval apart from the approval granted by the Vice Chancellor is required. Thus, in terms of the appointment of the petitioner having been approved by the Vice Chancellor, he was entitled to payment of salary, which has not been paid.
7. The present petition is disposed off directing the respondents to ensure the payment of salary to the petitioner in accordance with law from the date when the petitioner has joined after the grant of approval by the Vice Chancellor i.e. 09.09.2017.
8. The question of working of the petitioner cannot be decided by this Court. However, while passing the order for grant of salary, the DIOS shall pass an order in accordance with law after taking into the statutory provisions.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
VNP/-
