Allahabad High Court
Nand Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 December, 2020
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11026 of 2020 Petitioner :- Nand Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ras Bihari Pradhan Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner's wife has died on 21.03.2016 while in service working as Assistant Teacher.
By means of the instant petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding or directing the respondents to make the payment of salary and allowance due from 01.07.2015 to November 2015 to the petitioner forthwith with a view to secure the end of justice.
(ii) Issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The petitioner relies upon the order of this Court dated 19.08.2017 in an identical writ petition being Writ A No. 33360 of 2017 Angad Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others), which was filed by the similarly placed persons challenging the same impugned order and seeking similar and identical relief, has passed a detailed judgment and order allowing the writ petition. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
"Applying these principles on the facts of the present case, I find that the petitioners in terms of the change of the academic session, when admittedly their dates of superannuation fall during the academic session i.e. 01st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2016 as their dates of birth are 01.07.1953, 01.06.1953, 01.05.1953, 03.05.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953 and 15.05.1953 respectively, they were entitled for the sessional benefit and to continue upto 31st March, 2016. There was no fault on their part as they were not allowed to work after 30th June, 2015. A specific direction was issued not to allow them to continue beyond 30th June, 2015. The said direction, as mentioned above, was manifestly erroneous and contrary to the well settled practice and the relevant Rules to give the session benefit to such teachers whose date of superannuation falls during the academic session. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 08th October, 2015 rectifying the said mistake, hence the Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 that the teachers who were allowed to continue after the judgment of Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra) and the Government Order dated 08th October, 2015, will not be paid salary from 30th June, 2015 till their rejoining is arbitrary and unreasonable. When the Government itself had issued an order dated 08th October, 2015, there was no justification to issue the impugned order dated 02nd May, 2017, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra). As noted above, the Division Bench has declared the Government Order dated 15th June, 2015 illegal.
Regard may be had to the fact that on the basis of the said order, the petitioners were denied sessional benefits. Once the said order was set aside, the petitioners became entitled to continue. The respondents have also allowed the petitioners to rejoin their position.
Therefore, in the said background and on a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The petitioners are entitled for their salary from 30th June, 2015 till the date of their rejoining. Ordered accordingly.
Thus, the writ petition stands allowed."
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits which were accorded to the petitioner in a case of Angad Yadav (supra) and the petitioner shall be paid consequential benefits on account of service of the wife of the petitioner.
The petition is allowed in terms of the judgment in the case of Angad Yadav (supra).
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 3.12.2020 Ujjawal