Allahabad High Court
Rimmi Mirza vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 4 January, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:844
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9091 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rimmi Mirza
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Singh,Ran Vijay Singh
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties 3 and 4.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioner to join duties on the post of Assistant Teacher at Primary School Nindemau, Hasanganj, District Unnao in pursuance of letter dated 12.12.2022 issued by District Basic Education Officer with all consequential service benefits.
3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated 26.08.2010 on account of unauthorized absence. The said order was challenged before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in claim Petition No.326 of 2011 which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 01.07.2015 with a specific direction that petitioner should be permitted to continue in service forthwith but withheld payment of salary till 13.07.2010. However, direction was issued for counting the period of absence for other service benefits such as A.C.P., seniority etc. It is submitted that aforesaid judgment attained finality since it was not challenged by the opposite parties.
4. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to letter dated 12.10.2015 issued by the District Basic Education Officer to Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, for necessary directions. It is submitted that despite the same, petitioner was not permitted to continue in service till year 2022 whereafter by means of letter dated 12.12.2022, for the first time, petitioner was directed to present herself for continuance in service in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal. It is submitted that once judgment was rendered by the Tribunal in the presence of counsel for opposite parties, it was incumbent upon them to have adhered to directions issued therein without waiting for initiation of contempt proceedings.
5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 3 and 4 has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that although judgment and order dated 01.07.2015 has attained finality, delay occurred on account of petitioner herself who failed to present herself before the authority concerned for compliance of the directions. It is also submitted that present petition would not be maintainable in view of fact that petitioner has an alternative and equally efficacious remedy of filing an application for execution before the Tribunal itself under Rule 24 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1992. It is submitted that therefore the present petition is highly belated.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted between the parties that petitioner was earlier terminated from service vide order dated 26.08.2010 which was challenged before the Tribunal as indicated herein above and the Claim Petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 01.07.2015. It is also admitted that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality since it was not challenged by any party.
7. It is also admitted between the parties that by means of order dated 12.12.2022 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao, petitioner has been directed to present herself before the competent authority for compliance of judgment rendered by the Tribunal.
8. Considering aforesaid admitted facts, it is quite evident that petitioner has a judgment by a Court of competent jurisdiction in her favour whereby order pertaining to termination of her services stands set aside with all consequential benefits, as indicated herein above, having been granted. It appears that opposite parties were completely aware with regard to passing of the said judgment as would be evident from letter issued by the District Basic Education Officer himself on 12.10.2015.
9. This Court does not find the action of opposite parties to be reasonable within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Once the opposite parties were aware with regard to passing of judgment by the Tribunal as evident from letter dated 12.10.2015 itself, there was no occasion for the District Basic Education Officer to have sought directions from higher authorities for compliance or implementation of judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The said authority on its own should have issued necessary directions for compliance instead of waiting for seven years since passing of the judgment.
10. So far as the submission regarding maintainability of petition is concerned, this Court does not find any good ground to reject the petition on the aforesaid submission raised regarding its maintainability. This Court finds that since the judgment had been rendered in favour of petitioner as far back as year 2015, it is incumbent upon all the instrumentality of State and other authorities as indicated in Article 12 of the Constitution of India to comply with directions issued by such Courts without waiting for initiation of contempt or execution proceedings. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has inherent right to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and other persons in the country. In view of the said fact, this Court does not find any good ground to reject this petition after such a long time with only to grant liberty to petitioner to approach the Tribunal again for execution of the judgment which even otherwise has attained finality.
11. In view of aforesaid, the petition is held to be maintainable.
12. Considering the aforesaid discussion and admitted situation, opposite party no.3 i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Unnao is directed to ensure compliance of judgment rendered by the Tribunal dated 01.07.2015 and by virtue of its own letter dated 12.12.2022. For the said purpose, petitioner is directed to present herself before opposite party no.3 on 08.01.2024.
13. Opposite party no.3 shall ensure compliance of directions issued by the Tribunal and will permit petitioner to join in her services forthwith.
14. List on 11.01.2024, as fresh.
Order Date :- 4.1.2024
kvg/-
