Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 January, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 49
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR RESERVED In Chamber Case :- WRIT - A No.-52451 of 2009 Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Ashok Khare, Sudhir Kumar Chandraul Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter-alia, praying for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure No.10) to the writ petition passed by Director Higher Education U.P. Lucknow, respondent no.2.
ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary to petitioner with arrears w.e.f. 01.03.2006 and month to month as and when falls due in accordance with law.
iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in peaceful functioning as Class IV employee (peon).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the State Government vide a Government Order dated 14th September, 2005 created 145 posts of Class-III and Class-IV in the Government Degree/ Post Graduate Colleges. Four posts each in the category of Lab Attendant and Lab Assistant were created in the College. The Director of Education (Higher), U.P., Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Director") vide order dated 21st November, 2005 directed the Principal of all the Government Degree Colleges to initiate the recruitment process for filling up the vacancies of Class-III and Class-IV posts in their colleges. It is stated that It is claimed that the Committee of Management of the College issued an advertisement was published in daily newspaper "Dainik Jagran" on 17.12.2005 inviting vacancy of four posts in the category of Lab Attendant (Class IV) in Goswami Tulsi Das Rajkiya Snatakottar Mahavidyalaya Karvi, Chittrakoot (hereinafter referred to as the "Institution") calling applications from the eligible candidates against the four posts of Lab Attendant (Class-IV posts). The petitioner made application in pursuance of the said advertisement and they were found suitable by the Selection Committee and, accordingly, the Principal of the Institution issued appointment letters in favour of the petitioner on 28th February, 2006, in pursuance thereof the petitioner joined on 1st March, 2006 on the post of Peon and since then he is working in the Institution. It is alleged that despite the fact that the petitioner has been continuously working and discharging his duties, the payment of salary was withheld from March, 2006 without specifying any reason. Despite repeated representations having been filed by the petitioner before the respondent-authorities, the payment of salary of the petitioner continued to be withheld.
3. Aggrieved with the said action of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.57104 of 2008 (Virendra Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court and vide order dated 12.11.2008, the writ petition has been disposed off. The order dated 12.11.2008 is quoted below:
"Contention of petitioner that he has been validly appointed, but no step is being undertaken for ensuring his remuneration since February, 2006.
Grievance raised by the petitioner can be very well looked into, examined and remedied by Director of Higher Education, U.P. Allahabad as such liberty is given to petitioner to represent his claim before the aforesaid authority within three weeks from today alongwith certified copy of this order. In this event of any such representation being made, the same shall be looked into, considered and appropriate decision be taken, in accordance with law, within next eight weeks, and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner.
In terms of above observation, present writ petition is disposed of."
4. In compliance of the above order of this Court, the Director vide impugned order dated 22.06.2009 has rejected the claim of the petitioner, inter-alia, on the ground that the incumbent, who had made appointment of the petitioner, had under gone some disciplinary proceeding, which is said to have been taken against him for irregularity committed in the appointment of Class III & IV employees and since there are procedural irregularities in the appointment of the petitioner and, accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner has been declared illegal.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been continuously working and discharging his duties on the post of peon w.e.f. 28.02.2006, but the payment of salary of the petitioner was withheld from March, 2006 without specifying any reason. Further submission is that no order has been passed by the respondents either stopping the salary of the petitioner or canceling his appointment in any manner, whatsoever, therefore, in absence of any order, the action of the respondents in abruptly stopping the salary of the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. Further submission is that under the relevant Rules, the process of selection has been undertaken by the competent authority in pursuance of the relevant government order creating the additional post in the Institution. Thus, there existed no cogent reason for withholding the salary of the petitioner. Further submission is that in the impugned order, there is nothing about any illegality or irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner and in view thereof, there is no justification to refuse the claim of the petitioner as has been done by the impugned order, hence, the impugned order is wholly illegal and erroneous. Further submission is that in the impugned order, the Director has not pointed out any procedural irregularity but has referred the punishment awarded to Sri Surya Bali Dwivedi, the then officiating Principal of the College, which has no relation with the appointment of the petitioner made against duly sanctioned and vacant Class-IV posts. Further the impugned order does not disclose any illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the selection. Moreover, the version of the petitioner has not been considered. The State Government itself has taken disciplinary action against the then Director, who has passed the impugned order. Submission further is that in one of the similar matters in Writ-A No. 66584 of 2008 (Chandra Deo Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 09th September, 2014 and Writ-A No.3730 of 2009 (Ajai Raj Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 03.04.2015, this Court has set aside the order of the Director and has remanded the matter back for reconsideration.
6. I have heard Ms. Vijeta Kushwaha, holding brief of Sri S.K. Chadraul, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.
7. From the order of the Director, it appears that the appointment of the petitioner was made during the tenure of officiating Principal Sri Surya Bali Dwivedi, against whom a disciplinary action was taken. In the order, it has not been denied that there were sanctioned posts and they were advertised in the widely circulated newspaper "Dainik Jagran". The fact that the posts were sanctioned and the petitioner possessed the essential qualification, has not been adverted to by the Director.
8. In view of above observations, I am of the opinion that the order of the Director dated 22nd June, 2009, as is impugned in the present writ petition, is unsustainable and it is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Director to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation along with supporting documents within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Director shall consider the representation and the material filed by the petitioner and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions is allowed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :-08.01.2021 Ajeet (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.)