Allahabad High Court
Dayashankar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 27 October, 2023
Bench: Manjive Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:205129
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17999 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dayashankar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rama Nand Pandey
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5.
2. Petitioner, in his writ petition, has stated that he was working in a Junior High School, run by the U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj and was to retire from service on 30.6.2015 but the State Government changed the academic session and provided that henceforth academic session will come to an end on 31st March of every year. It has been brought to the notice of this court that initially petitioner was not allowed to work after 30.6.2015 in view of the fact that the academic session already came to an end on 31.03.2015 but later on in view of the orders passed by this court, petitioner and identically placed teachers were allowed to continue till 31.03.2016.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that issue for payment of salary from 1.7.2015 till 31.12.2015 has already been considered by this Court in its judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 rendered in Writ-C No. 33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav And 7 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) and this court has held that the respondents were under obligation to allow the teachers to work from 1.7.2015 till 31.12.2015 and if they have failed to discharge their obligation then the teachers are entitled for payment of salary for the aforesaid period but petitioner has not been paid salary for the period from 01.07.2015 to 31.12.2015.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner since the year 2016 is running from pillar to post and has submitted various representations to the District Basic Education Officer, Jhansi for payment of his salary for the period from 1.7.2015 to 31.12.2015 but till date no heed has been paid by the Respondents No. 4 and 5.
5. On the other hand Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 has very fairly submitted that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued to the District Basic Education Officer, Jhansi to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Angad Yadav (supra) within the fixed time frame.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Basic Education Officer, Jhansi within one month from today, who shall consider and decide the same in the light of the decision of this court rendered in the case of Angad Yadav (Supra) within a period of two months thereafter. It is also provided that if the representation is decided in favour of the petitioner, the payment of salary shall be made to him within one month thereafter.
Order Date :- 27.10.2023
Salim
