Gajendra Bihari Lal Saxena vs State Of Up And 5 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 2964 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gajendra Bihari Lal Saxena vs State Of Up And 5 Others on 2 February, 2024

Author: Ajit Kumar

Bench: Ajit Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:18043
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1223 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Gajendra Bihari Lal Saxena
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratik Chandra,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner before this Court discharged his duties as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade on ad hoc basis and retired as such in March 2022, however, his claim for regularization remained pending consideration before the Regional Selection Committee upon papers being forwarded. He submits that earlier there was a litigation in the matter of appointment of the petitioner and one Kameshwar Prasad Srivastava on short term vacancy vide writ petition filed by them being Writ - A No. 13283 of 1995. Upon dismissal of said writ petition, both the petitioner and Kameshwar Prasad Srivastava preferred intra court appeals being Special Appeal No. 1163 of 1999 and Special Appeal No. 1082 of 1999 in which following directions came to be issued:

"The question with regard to the regularisation and benefit under Section 33-B of the 1981 Act would arise only if the appointment of the appellants against short term vacancies is found to be in order. We therefore, provide further that if the District Inspector of Schools holds that the appointment of the appellants against short term vacancies was in order he may further consider the question of regularisation. With regard to the question of regularisation also the Selection Committee constituted under Section 33-G(2)(a) of the 1981 Act will examine the eligibility and suitability of each teacher and thereafter recommend the namely to the management. In case the appellants are not found to be entitled to the benefit of Section 33-B of the 1981 Act, but their appointment against short term vacancies is found to be valid, they would be entitled to salary for the said period i.e. from the date of initial appointment till conversion of the posts into substantive vacancies.

It is made clear that in case the appellants fail in the first stage itself i.e. their reappointment against short vacancy is not found to be in order, it would not be obligatory on the part of the District Inspector of Schools to refer the matter for consideration under Section 33-B of the 1981 Act.

Special Appeals are accordingly allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.01.1999 as well as the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 2.5.1995 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar for afresh decision in accordance with law and in view of the observations made above.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs."

3. Pursuant to the order passed in aforesaid Special Appeals on 16.01.2007 the District Inspector of Schools ultimately upheld the appointment of both, the petitioner and Kameshwar Prasad Srivastava to be valid one under his order dated 19.06.2008 which has remain unquestioned till date. The operative portion of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools in respect of the petitioner and Kameshwar Prasad Srivastava is reproduced hereunder:

???????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????????? ??????30.5.89 ?? ??? ?????????/???? ??????????? ?? ????? 8.2.90 ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????????? 7.8.93 ?? ????? ???????? ?? ???????????? ?? ?????? ????? ????????? ??? ????????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ??????????? ???? 33(?) ?? ?????? ???????????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???

?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? 15 ????? ??????? ???? ?? 8.2.90 ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? 19.2.90 ?? ??????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? 15 ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?? (???? ???? ?? ??????) ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? 8.2.90 ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? 33 (?), 33(?) (????????) ???????????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? (????) ????????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???

??????

????????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ??????? ? ???? ?????? ?????????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ??????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? 7 ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? 7.2.90 ???? ???????? ???????? ????? ???? (?? ?? ??? ??? ??) ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ???

(2) ???????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??????????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????????????? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ???????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ?????

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the services of Kamleshwar Prasad Srivastava came to be regularized on 21.08.2018 but it transpires from the order that there has been no consideration of the claim of petitioner in the said order. It is argued therefore, that after the regularization of Kamleshwar Prasad Srivastava took place he retired and he has been awarded with all post retirement dues including pension but since claim of the petitioner for regularization was not given any consideration and that remain pending before the Regional Selection Committee under Section 33-B of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act No. 5 of 1982), petitioner did not get anything by way of post retirement dues upon attaining the age of superannuation.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Regional Selection Committee may be directed to do the needful in the matter at the earliest so that petitioner may also be awarded with post retirement dues.

6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Regional Joint Director of Education to ensure that the Regional Selection Committee is held within a period of three weeks of production of certified copy of this order before the Regional Joint Director of Education and orders are passed within the next two weeks' time considering the claim of the petitioner, more especially in the circumstances when the District Inspector of Schools had already come to approve his appointment along with that of Kameshwar Prasad Srivastava under his order quoted above and the fact that Regional Selection Committee has already regularized the services of Kameshwar Prasad Srivastava who was also beneficiary of a common judgment passed in Special Appeals and that of the consequential order passed by District Inspector of Schools. Soon after the decision is taken by Regional Selection Committee and in the event petitioner's services stand regularized like that of Kameshwar Prasad Srivastava, the District Inspector of Schools thereafter shall ensure that all the papers for post retirement dues of the petitioner are placed before the competent authority and the post retirement dues and the competent authority shall disburse all such dues to the petitioner within a further period of one month.

Order Date :- 2.2.2024

IrfanUddin