Allahabad High Court

Lal Mani Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 5 Ors on 5 March, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30973
 
Judgment Reserved on 19.2.2025
 
Delivered on 5.3.2025
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50173 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Lal Mani Pandey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar,Smt. Manju R. Chauhan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- V.B. Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner before this Court has set up a case that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Aadhunik Bhasha) on 20.7.1978 in the respondent college against substantive post after following a due process and his appointment was approved by the Vice Chancellor of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi vide Letter No.G-4189/4182/78 dated 30.3.1982.

3. The petitioner has further set up a case that there was a dispute of rival Committees of Management in regard to payment of salary of the petitioner and therefore, a spot inspection was conducted by the State respondents on 24.3.2007 and he was paid salary continuously till March, 2007. However, further a dispute arose between the petitioner and one Ramashray Upadhyay in regard to their seniority.

4. Thereafter said dispute came before this Court in a Writ Petition No.13927 of 2008 wherein an order dated 13.3.2008 was passed to decide the issue and accordingly vide order dated 7.6.2008 it was decided in his favour by the Secretary, Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner was directed to discharge his duties as an Officiating Principal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite aforesaid order dated 7.6.2008, salary of the petitioner was not paid. In this regard, petitioner has submitted various representations and when nothing was done, he was constrained to file a second Writ Petition bearing Number 59996 of 2013, which was decided vide order dated 12.11. 2013 with a direction to the respondent no.5, (District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur) to decide claim of the petitioner within a period of six weeks.

6. When the aforesaid order was not complied with, petitioner has to take recourse to file a Contempt Petition No.972 of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.2.2014 with certain observations. Thereafter, petitioner filed another Contempt Petition No.3149 of 2014, wherein an order was passed to comply the order dated 12.11.2013 and only thereafter finally by impugned order dated 16.7.2014, claim of the petitioner was considered but rejected and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

" समीक्षा

श्री लालमणि पाण्डेय के लिखित अभिकथन एवं पत्रावली में उपलब्ध अभिलेखों का विधिवत परीक्षण किया गया। एक अन्य वाद में पारित माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन में प्रतिवादी संख्या-03 उप शिक्षा निदेशक (संस्कृत), शिक्षा निदेशालय उ०प्र०, इलाहाबाद द्वारा पत्र पृ०सं०- सामान्य (२) विस्तार / 243-52/2007-08 दिनांक 30 अप्रैल 2007 द्वारा दिये गये निर्णय में यह स्पष्ट उल्लिखित किया गया है कि प्राचार्य के अतिरिक्त 05 (पाँच) शिक्षक 03 संस्कृत विषय के व 02 शिक्षक आधुनिक विषय के ही वेतन पाने के अधिकारी है। श्री लालमणि पाण्डेय स०अ० द्वारा प्रस्तुत अभिलेखानुसार उनका अनुमोदन सम्पूर्णानन्द संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय, वाराणसी के पत्रांक-जी०/4189/4182-78 दिनांक 30.03.82 द्वारा किया गया है, जबकि कार्यालय में उपलब्ध अभिलेखानुसार इसी पत्रांक दिनांक से दो प्रकार के अनुमोदन है एक पर सत्य नारायण पाण्डेय एवं श्री लालमणि पाण्डेय दोनों के नाम तथा दूसरे पर केवल लालमणि पाण्डेय का नाम है, जिससे स्पष्ट है कि याची की अनुमोदन संदिग्ध है।

निर्णय

वस्तुतः पत्रावली में याची के एक ही पत्रांक, दिनांक से निर्गत दो प्रकार के अनुमोदन कृते सचिव सम्पूर्णानन्द संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय, वाराणसी द्वारा निर्गत दोनों अनुमोदन आदेशों में भिन्नता होने के कारण माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 12.11.2013 के समादर में याची के वेतन भुगतान हेतु दिये गये प्रत्यावेदन को अस्वीकार करते हुए निस्तारित किया जाता है।"

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that aforesaid order was a self contradictory order as the document dated 30.3.1982, copy of which is on record and is not being declared as a forged document still only on a ground that on same date, two documents were despatched one in regard to petitioner and other in regard to Satya Narayan Pandey would not be a substantial ground to reject claim of the petitioner without considering that said Satya Narayan Pandey has filed Writ Petition No.26635 of 1989, wherein vide an interim order dated 22.10.1990 he has been paid salary and it appears that when his purpose was over, he withdrew the said writ petition, as such no adverse order was passed against him. Whereas, there is a reference in one of the documents that said person was dismissed from service.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on basis of such unsustainable grounds, entire service of petitioner was put at stake when he was about to retire. This writ petition was filed in 2014 when petitioner has declared his aged to be about 59 years. No interim order was passed.

9. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has referred counter affidavit filed by Assistant Registrar (Affiliation) Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and refers paragraph number 6 of it. He also referred contents of personal/counter affidavit filed by Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow. Said part of counter and personal affidavit are reproduced hereinafter:

" Para 6 of the counter affidavit.

6. That in reply to the contents of paragraph nos. 5,6 and 7 of the writ petition it is submitted that due to non-availability of the original file of the institution in the University. The detail of the qualification of teachers, sanctioned post of teachers and other staff by the government and the document relating to their appointment is not possible to verify. The approval register is also not available in the office of the University. By perusal of page 2nd and 3rd of the present file of the institution it is clear that the original file of the institution is not available and in such a situation on the direction of the then Registrar dated 16.08.2005 for verification of the documents annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and at the place of senders at serial no. G-4189, the name of the institution is mentioned. A photo copy of the relevant extract of the dispatch register is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure no. C.A.1 to this affidavit. It is further submitted that at serial NO. G-1542 sender's name principal of the institution and receiver's name is Registrar of the University and subject matter is the demand of 2nd copy of the approval register. In the serial it is mentioned that vide letter No.G-1542/05 verification of the approval has been issued."

Paragraph nos. 23, 24 and 25 of personal affidavit.

23. That the contents of paragraph nos.24, 25 and 26 of the writ petition are not admitted, as stated, hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that the letter furnished by the petitioner alleged to have been issued by Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalay, Varanasi dated 30.03.1982, in which petitioner's name is mentioned whereas in the same letter, the approval order which is mentioned therewith, the name of petitioner and Satya Narayan Pandey is mentioned. Thus, on account of contradiction between both the approval orders, the petitioner's representation has been decided, declining his request of payment of salary. Thus, issuance of two approval orders through common letter number clearly makes both the same dubious in itself. Thus, the purported approval letter furnished by the petitioner is forged and fabricated, therefore, by the deciding the petitioner's representation, the answering respondent has turned down the claim of the petitioner, which is justified under rules and law.

24. That the contents of paragraph no. 27 of the writ petition are not admitted, as stated, hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that salary of the petitioner has been infringed since 2007 and the said stoppage has been stopped on the basis of forgery by drawing double the salary of teachers in relation to the post created. The manager is taking over the work from the petitioner whereas the decision taken by the Secretary, Secondary Education Council has been taken on 07.05.2008 in view of the seniority of Ram Asare Upadhyay and the petitioner and in the interest of the students, the application has been forwarded, distribution of examination mark sheets, TC etc., which cannot be taken as ground in the present writ petition and the order dated 07.05.2008 is annexed as annexure-4 to the writ petition. The representation furnished by the petitioner dated 04.08.2014 has been decided by District Inspector of Schools by means of reasoned and speaking order, which is justified under rules and law.

25. That the contents of paragraph nos. 28 to 32 of the writ petition are not admitted, as stated, hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that on the basis of preparing fake and dubious records, the petitioner in connivance with committee of management of the petitioner's institution, the petitioner was receiving the salary including 10 teachers and attendants from the treasury against the 05 created posts. There was a management dispute in the institution regarding this fact and the salary payment has been blocked after conducting a factual inquiry by the department."

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused records.

11. It is not under dispute that petitioner has worked since 1978 to 2014 and his appointment was approved from the respondent University i.e he has worked for more than 36 years and when he was at the fag end of his service, a dispute in regard to his salary arose in pursuance of an order passed by the respondent State and without any reason nature of his appointment was scrutinised and it was considered to be doubtful only on a ground that on same date, two letters were dispatched, one with regard to petitioner and other with regard to Satya Narayan Pandey. However, admittedly no adverse order was passed in regard to other person, therefore, impugned order on the face of it is arbitrary. Though, there is an argument that services of said Satya Narayan Pandey was terminated, but it is not substantiated by any document.

12. The University has also not undertaken any endeavour to enquire as to whether the document i.e. the approval letter issued in the year 1978 was a forged document or not and if so, how it was issued.

13. The reasons assigned in the impugned order are very cursory and vague and therefore are unsustainable. Accordingly, impugned order dated 16.7.2014 is set-aside and its legal consequence shall follow.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, Court is of the view that respondent University has adopted a very callous approach which is deprecated. The University has a liberty to pass a fresh order if it has substantial material to dispute the letter of approval.

15. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Order Date :- 5.3.2025