Allahabad High Court
Bhola Nath Pandey And 12 Others vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 20 August, 2019
Author: Suneet Kumar
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 55334 of 2017 Petitioner :- Bhola Nath Pandey And 12 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhendu Mishra,Dev Raj Singh,Vidhu Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Chandra Prakash Yadav,Sabhajeet Singh Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sabhajeet Singh, learned counsel for the first respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Petitioners are working as Instructor, Art Education and Physical Education in different schools.
By the instant writ petition, petitioners seek the following relief:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to consider the matter of the petitioners and pass appropriate order for payment of honorarium Rs.17,000/- in pursuance to the order passed by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, and to pay the same to the petitioners accordingly from the month of March 2017."
It is urged by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition on facts and law has been considered and decided by the learned Single Judge in Anurag and another Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development and others on 3 July 2019 (Service Single No.7631 of 2018 and connected matters). The operative portion of the order reads thus:
"24. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite party Nos.2 and 4 i.e. the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow and the State Project Direction (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), U.P., Lucknow to pay the arrears of enhanced honorarium at the rate of Rs.17000/- per month to the petitioners with effect from the month of March, 2017 till date.
25. Despite the decision that has been taken by the Executive Committee reducing the amount of honorarium from Rs.17000/- per month to Rs.9800/- per month vide order dated 21.12.2017 and 02.01.2018, however the same has now been quashed, but the petitioners have not even been paid the honorarium at the rate of Rs.9800/- per month till date, as they were being paid the honorarium at the rate of Rs.8470/- per month, therefore, this Court treating the aforesaid inaction on the part of the opposite parties as harassment of the petitioners, the petitioners are allowed interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears of enhanced honorarium, as directed above.
26. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed."
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of decision rendered in Anurag (supra).
No cost.
Order Date :- 20.8.2019 Atul