Allahabad High Court
Lalji Singh Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 25 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63695
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44028 of 2015
Petitioner :- Lalji Singh Yadav And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Km Rai,Anjani Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- Bipin Bihari Pandey,C.S.C.,Deo Dayal,R.B. Pradhan
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Anjani Kumar Rai, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for State.
2. Petitioners (4 in numbers) have claimed that they were appointed in respondent institution against four sanctioned posts after due process. Their appointment letters were issued on 27.12.1988 and 30.12.1988 and they have started working. Later on, when the institution was in process to be taken up in grant-in-aid, a managerial report was submitted in prescribed proforma on 29.09.2006 and later on by Government Order dated 02.12.2006, the institution was taken under grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.12.2006.
3. It is further case of petitioners that when their salaries were not disbursed from State Exchequer, they have approached this Court by way of filing Writ A No. 22232/2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 02.05.2008 to consider their claim.
4. In pursuance of above order, the District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur considered the claim of petitioners, however, by order dated 02.08.2008, their claims were rejected on a ground that no order to sanction post was dispatched from office of Additional Director of Education (Basic).
5. Aforesaid order was later on subject matter of Writ A Nos. 56101/2008, 56102/2008 and 56103/2008 which were allowed vide order dated 14.12.2011 wherein impugned order was set aside and matter was remitted back to pass fresh order.
6. In aforesaid circumstances, Director of Education (Basic) passed an order dated 03.07.2013 and relevant part thereof is quoted below :-
"????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? 1989 ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ??????-1232/79-6-2012 ?????? ??? 05 / 2012 ?????? 31-1-2013 ??? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ????, ?????? ???? ????, ????? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ????????? ???????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? / ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ???????? ??? ??????????/???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??. ?? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ????????? ????????? ???? ???? ???"
7. Subsequent to above order, District Basic Education Officer vide its order dated 02.01.2015 took a view that since no payment was made to petitioners after institution was brought under grant-in-aid, therefore, in pursuance of above order dated 03.07.2013, no payment could be made.
8. Aforesaid order dated 02.01.2015 is impugned in this writ petition.
9. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that once Director of Education (Basic) vide order dated 03.07.2013 has directed to release salary from State Exchequer, then, there is no occasion or reason with B.S.A. concerned to take a contrary view.
10. Learned counsel also submits that only on a ground that dispatch register was not traceable, claim of petitioners that there were appointed against sanctioned post cannot be disputed.
11. Learned counsel also refers that in another case, State has mentioned that dispatch register was not available for relevant period. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 INSC 7.
12. Per contra, learned C.S.C. for State submits that even in order dated 03.07.2013, claim of petitioners that they were appointed against sanctioned posts was rejected. They were directed to pay salary only on a ground that they have worked for substantial period and it was found that petitioners were not paid salary ever since institution was brought into grant-in-aid and payment of salary was rightly rejected.
13. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused record.
14. Claim of petitioners is based on a sanction order whereby 4 posts were sanctioned, however, no details of sanction order was found at office of concerned respondent. Even in the order dated 03.07.2013, said claim was not accepted as it was specifically mentioned therein that petitioners would be absorbed against a post if became vacant in future and said order was never challenged.
15. By the impugned order, the District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur on basis of available records has rejected claim of petitioners for payment of salary to petitioners from State Exchequer, that on basis of documents, since no salary was ever paid from State Exchequer, therefore, petitioners were not allowed to get said benefit.
16. In aforesaid circumstances, Court is of considered opinion that petitioners' basic and essential claim that they were appointed against sanctioned post was not accepted rather there was a finding against them in the order dated 03.07.2013, which was not challenged, therefore, even they have worked for a long time, still they are not entitled for payment of salary from State Exchequer.
17. The reliance placed by learned counsel for petitioners upon judgment of Radhey Shyam Yadav (supra) would also not be helpful to petitioners since in present case, petitioners were not appointed against any sanctioned post as well as they were not paid salary after institution was brought into grant-in-aid and it is also not a case of working for a very long period.
18. In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in impugned order, therefore, writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2025
Sinha_N.
