Allahabad High Court
Ramayan Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195461
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16433 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ramayan Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shachindra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Shachindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that, while working on the post of Principal in Shanti Niketan Intermediate College, Tekua, District Deoria, was placed under suspension on 13.06.2011, 17 days before his retirement on 30.06.2011. Aggrieved against the suspension order, the writ petitioner preferred Writ-A No. 34765 of 2011 (Ramayan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) which came to be dismissed on 23.06.2011, whereby against the order dated 23.06.2011 Special Appeal No. 1855 of 2012 (Ramayan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) came to be dismissed as infructuous on 22.08.2016 with the condition that "dismissal of the present will not come in the way of the petitioner to settle the final dues for which he is entitled as per law". Thereafter the writ petitioner preferred Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1067 of 2017 (Ramayan Yadav Vs. Satish Singh, Dy. Director of Education & 2 others) came to be disposed of on 07.03.2017.
3. Thereafter, the writ petitioner represented his causebefore the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, District Deoria who issued a letter to Principal/Manager, Shanti Niketan Intermediate College, Tekua, District Deoria dated 12.09.2018 for the payment of 17 days salary of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner further preferred Writ-A No. 4337 of 2013 challenging the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Education, 7th Region, Gorakhpur, whereby pension of the writ petitioner sought to be altered which came to be allowed. The writ petitioner submits though he has been paid pension but he has not been paid salary of 17 days.
4. Prayer in the present petition for a direction to accord payment of salary for a period of 13.06.2011 to 30.06.2011. Learned Standing Counsel who appears for respondents no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the other hand submits that the issue as to whether writ petitioner is entitled to accorded benefit of 17 days salary is a matter which needs adjudication by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria particularly and in view of the fact that in case writ petitioner claims that there is a communication of District Inspector of Schools, Deoria to the Principal of the institution in question dated 12.09.2018 thus, the writ petitioner ought to have come earlier before this Court as according to him the claim which is being set up is inordinately and enormously barred by limitation also. He further seeks rely upon the judgment in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation 2022 (5) SC 470. Thus, the writ petitioner is no entitled to relief.However, according to him, the writ petitioner may represent his cause before the fourth respondent who shall address to the claim of the writ petitioner.
5. To such a submission writ petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts that same.
6. Considering the submissions of the rival parties and stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the fourth respondent who shall on receipt of the same put to notice theShanti Niketan Intermediate College, Tekua, District Deoria who has not been impleaded as party respondent and after considering it say an order be passed with utmost expedition.
7. With aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
8. Needless to point out that this Counsel is not adjudicating on merits of the case.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023
S.A.
