Uttarakhand High Court
Vinay Upadhyay vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
SPECIAL APPEAL No.481 OF 2014
2nd January, 2023
Vinay Upadhyay ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...... Respondents
Presence: -
Shri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri J.C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
The present special is directed against one part
of the order dated 07.08.2014 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.364 of 2013 and
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1693 of 2013.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned
order so far as it relates to the relief sought in Writ
Petition (S/S) No.1693 of 2013.
3. The appellant had preferred Writ Petition (S/S)
No.364 of 2013 claiming that he is entitled to be paid the
honorarium as a PTA teacher in Jwalapur Inter College.
The honorarium was denied to the appellant on the
ground that he obtained B.Ed. degree while teaching in
the Institution since the year 2009.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ-
petition by the impugned order while returning the finding
that the appellant had been engaged as a PTA teacher
only since October, 2010 i.e. well after obtaining the B.Ed.
degree and, therefore, he was entitled to be paid
honorarium while he has served as a PTA teacher between
October 2010 and September, 2013.
5. It appears that during the pendency of the said
writ-petition, the services of the appellant were
discontinued by the respondent-institution. He,
consequently, preferred Writ Petition (S/S) No.1693 of
2013 to assail his termination. That petition was rejected
by the learned Single Judge by the common impugned
order on the ground that he had no lien on the post and,
therefore, his services could be discontinued.
6. The submission of Mr. Miglani is that the
termination of the appellant was done through an oral
order only on account of the fact that he had preferred
the first writ-petition. He further submits that when the
appellant had represented to the Education Officer, he
passed an order on 11.10.2013 to the effect that decision
on his representation against termination would be taken
2
after disposal of the writ-petition wherein he has claimed
the honorarium.
7. We have heard learned counsels and, we are of
the view that the District Education Officer should decide
the representation of the petitioner against his
termination in accordance with law, irrespective of the
dismissal of the appellant's writ-petition i.e. Writ Petition
(S/S) No.1693 of 2013 and without in any way being
influenced by the said dismissal.
8. We, accordingly, dispose of this appeal with
direction to the District Education Officer to decide the
representation of the petitioner against his verbal
termination within four weeks in accordance with law. In
case the representation is rejected the same should
disclose reasons therefor.
9. Urgent copy of this order be supplied to the
learned counsel for the parties during the course of the
day, as per Rules.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_______________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 2nd January, 2023
KKS/SS
