Allahabad High Court
Smt. Madhuri Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 29 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66844
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12908 of 2015
Petitioner :- Smt. Madhuri Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Shivendra Nath Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava,C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav,Tanu Roopanwal,Vinay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Shivendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Awadhesh Chandra Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-Respondents and Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for Respondent-4.
2. According to the petitioner her case is similar to the case of Smt. Usha Rani, who was also appointed alongwith petitioner vide appointment order dated 10.07.1977 and the common impugned order dated 01.04.1991 was set aside in a Writ Petition bearing No. 2127 of 1991 filed by said Smt. Usha Rani vide order dated 16.01.2008. Said order is reproduced hereinafter:
?Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the committee of management is not present.
The impugned order has been passed stopping the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph 18 of the writ petition that the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. This fact has been denied by the committee of management. However, from a perusal of the impugned order it is apparently clear, that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. In the opinion of the Court, since the order entails civil consequences, it was imperative for the respondents to issue a show cause notice and to give an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. In the present case this has not been done. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Further the stand taken by the Committee of Management is that the petitioner was not entitled to be given the salary from the grant-in-aid on account of the fact, that the petitioner was appointed in the Primary School and not in the Junior High School of the respondent institution. This allegation seems to be incorrect in view of the appointment letter dated 10.1.1977 issued in favour of petitioner which indicates that the petitioner was appointed to teach the Junior High Schools students.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. It is open to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.?
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no specific order was passed on basis of aforesaid order with regard to Smt. Usha Rani and she was allowed to work and her salary was paid from State Exchequer. However, petitioner?s case was considered independently despite while disposing of Writ-A No. 2129 of 2010, vide order dated 22.01.2010, filed by Smt. Kanak Agrawal and the petitioner, wherein an observation was made that their cases were similar to Smt. Usha Rani?s case, however, petitioner and another were non-suited by impugned order dated 29.11.2014 that there was no approval of her appointment though her appointment was approved alongwith Smt. Usha Rani and another, which is still in existence. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has worked from 1977 till her retirement in the year 2015 and probably she was paid from own expenses of Committee of Management of concerned School and not from State Exchequer.
4. The order dated 22.01.2010 passed in Writ-A No. 2129 of 2010 and relevant part of impugned order are reproduced hereinafter:
?Heard counsels for the parties.
Petitioner's claim is that they were working as assistant teacher in Krishna Mohini Vidya Mandir, Lahartara Varanasi. Their claim for salary was rejected vide order dated 05.01.1991 by the Regional Assistant Education Director (Basic) 5th Region, Varanasi. One of the teachers whose claim was also rejected alongwith the petitioners filed writ petition no.2127 of 1991 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.01.2008 and the impugned order was quashed on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice and the respondents were directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Petitioners preferred a representation dated 16.05.2009 annexure-11 to the writ petition before respondent no.1 to consider their claim also alongwith the claim of Smt. Usha Rani whose petition was allowed vide order dated 16.01.2008.
The grievances of the petitioners is that their representation dated 26.05.2008 is not being decided and therefore suitable directions be issued for considering the same.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the respondent no.1 is already seized with the matter in so far as the Smt. Usha Rani is concerned whose case is similar and identical to the petitioners, in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed off without expressing any opinion on merit with the direction to the respondent no.1 to consider the aforesaid representation of the petitioners along with the matter of Smt. Usha Rani and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.?
Relevant part of impugned order:
"??? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? 37763/2011 ???? ???????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? 14.03.2013 ??? ???????? ?????? 1232/79-6-2012, ?????????-05/2012 ?????? ??????-6 ???? ?????? 31 ????? 2013 ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???
???????? ?????? 723/79-6-10 ?????? ??????-6 ???? ?????? 30.04.2010 ??? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ??? ??????? ??????/??????????? ??????????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ????
????????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???
??????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? (?????? ??? ?????) (????????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????) ???????? 1978 ??? ????? ??????????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???????? ?????? 723/79-6-10 ?????? ??????-6 ???? ?????? 30.04.2010 ??? ???????? ?????? 1232/79-6-2012 ?????????-05/2012 ?????? ??????-6 ???? ?????? 31 ????? 2013 ??? ????? ??????????? ?? ???????? ? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????
??????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ??????????? ?????? 26.05.2008 ??? ??????????? ?????? 15.01.2014 ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ???"
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents are not able to convince the Court that case of petitioner was not similar to the case of Smt. Usha Rani.
6. In aforesaid circumstances, there is merit in the argument of learned counsel for petitioner as it is case of arbitrariness and petitioner is subjected to an order which is unsustainable in law, therefore, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 29.11.2014 passed by Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Division, Varanasi is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to concerned respondent to verify, whether petitioner has worked till her retirement or not and in case she has worked, her salary be paid from State Exchequer, after due verification. In case of any other legal impediment, the same shall be communicated to petitioner within a short period.
Order Date :- 29.4.2025
AK
