Smt. Kalli Devi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 2786 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Kalli Devi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 February, 2024

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:17326
 
Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37669 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Kalli Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Pratap Gupta,Manish Gupta,Ramesh Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bibhuti Narayan Singh,Niranjan Lal Srivastava,Rajesh Khare
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

Heard Shri Manish Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and Shri Bibhuti Narayan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.

The petitioner is claiming a stale claim. The petitioner has claimed that her husband was appointed as Headmaster of the respondent school, however, his services was terminated which led to filing of a civil suit which was decreed in his favour on 26.10.1981. A challenge to it by way of filing a first appeal and second appeal were rejected.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that subsequently, husband of petitioner moved various representations for his joining as Headmaster, however, he fairly submits that petitioner's husband has not taken any steps to get the decree executed, meanwhile he died on 17.11.2005.

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that thereafter petitioner claimed for arrears of salary and terminal benefits as well as other benefits, however, her claim was rejected. He further submits that petitioner has approached this Court by way of fling a Writ Petition No. 2515 of 2017 which was disposed of by an order dated 18.01.2017 with a direction that writ petiton be decided. The order passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court is reproduced hereinafter:

"The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release family pension in her favour and the other retiral benefits which became due on account of service rendered by her deceased husband as Head Master of Shanker Junior High School Deokali, Karvi, Chitrakoot.

The case of the petitioner is that her husband was appointed as Head Master in the above referred institution on 7.7.1978. Subsequently, a dispute arose between him and the Management and one other person who came to be appointed on the same post, leading to filing of original suit no. 14 of 1980 by her husband. The said suit was decreed by the trial court on 26.10.1981 issuing a declaration in favour of the petitioner's husband that he is a permanent Head Master of the institution and invalidating the appointment of the other person who came to be appointed in his place. The said judgment was affirmed in first appeal as well as in the second appeal. The husband of the petitioner had died on 17.11.2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that neither the arrears of salary nor terminal dues have been paid, compelling her to file the instant writ petition.

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of State respondents and Shri Rajesh Khare, learned counsel on behalf of fourth respondent very fairly stated that the representation, if any, made by the petitioner before the authorities in regard to her grievance shall be considered and decided within such time as may be directed by this Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the third respondent with a certified copy of this order and a fresh representation. In that event, the third respondent shall decide the same by means of a speaking order, in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of next three months, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the Manager of the institution and all other concerned."

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that in pursuance of the above order, representation of petitioner was considered and rejected by an order dated 03.06.2017 mainly on the ground that services of husband of petitioner was terminated way back on 19.05.1979 as well as that there was no record available whether husband of petitioner was granted salary between 1982 to 1984.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was a decree from the civil suit in favour of husband of petitioner, therefore her husband was entitled for service benefits, however, it was declined.

Learned counsel for respondent refers paragraph no. 5 of counter affidavit which is reproduced hereinafter:

"That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition it is respectfully submitted that in pursuance of letter No. 1069/2017-18, dated 12.05.2017 of District Basic Education Officer, Chitrakoot and the letter No. 167/Lekha/2017-18, dated 11.05.2017 of Finance and Account Officer, Basic Shiksha, Chitrakoot, according to received report the District Basic Education Officer, Chitrakoot by his letter 1032/Anudan/1982-83 dated 16.06.1982, the Shanker Junior High School, Deokali Karvi, District-Chitrakoot has been included in grant-in-aid list and the services of Late Bheemsen has already been closed on 19.05.1979 by the then Committee of Management since the Committee of Management of the institution on 07.07.1978 has appointed Late Bheemsen on the post of Head Master without any approval which has been abolished in 1979, thereafter the Committee of Management of the institution appointed Sri Ashok Kumar Singh on the post of Head Master, thereafter in the year 1982 on temporary basis Sri Jagmohan Singh was appointed on the post of Head Master and extended his services 06 months upto 1985. So the resignation dated 09.08.1985 has been given by the husband of the petitioner Sri Bhimsen and in the affidavit submitted by him has confirmed his resignation and which has been approved by District Basic Education Officer, Banda that has no feasibility in this pursuance. It is relevant to mention here that the records of the institution made available by the Committee of Management of the institution in Salary Bill Register from year 1982 upto Jan., 1984 the name and payment of Sri Bhimsen has been mentioned and in the said register he has not performed any liability of the institution on the basis of the record."

Learned counsel for respondent also refers relevant part of impugned order which is reproduced hereinafter:

" ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? 1069/2017-18 ?????? 12.05.2017 ?? ?????? ????????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??????????, ????? ??????, ???????? ?? ??????? 167/????/2017-18 ?????? 11.05.2017 ?? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? 1032/??????/1982-83 ?????? 16.06.1982 ?????? ???? ????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? 19.05.1979 ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??, ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? 07.07.1978 ?? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??, ???? 1979 ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? 1985 ?? ???? ?????? 06-06 ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? 09.08.1985 ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???????????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? 1982 ?? ????? 1984 ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ????????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??

???????? ?????? ?? ??????????????, ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???????, ???????? ??? ????? ??? ??????????, ????? ??????, ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ?????? ??? ????????????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ???"

Heard counsels for parties and perused the record. The petitioner is harping on a decree passed by a Civil Suit in favour of her husband, however, as referred above it was never executed. Therefore it is nothing but a dead decree. The claim of petitioner is based that her husband was entitled for service and he was erroneously declined the same. In this regard relevant part of impugned order would be relevant, wherein it has been stated that service of petitioner's husband was terminated in the year 1979 and he has never worked thereafter which is also supported by the decree passed in favour of petitioner's husband. Factual findings are not disputed since no material which may contradict it is available on record.

As referred above the decree was never executed even after challenge to it was rejected by this Court in second appeal way back in the year 1985. The petitioner's husband has never taken any stand to get the decree executed. Therefore the claim of petitioner as referred above is a stale claim and no relief can be granted to petitioner. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

Accordingly, this writ petiton is dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.2.2024

Saurabh