Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Vishwa Nath Tewari & Ors.Etc.Etc. vs State Of U.P.& Ors.Etc.Etc. on 7 January, 2014
1
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1564-1567/2012
(From the judgement and order dated 31/05/2011 in SA No.633/2006,
SA No.116/2007 dated 03/08/2011 in RP No.224/2011 in SA No.633/2006
& RP No.229/2011 in SA No.116/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD, BENCH AT LUCKNOW)
VISHWA NATH TEWARI & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and office
report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
WITH
SLP(C) NO. 4507-4508 of 2012
(With office report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
SLP(C) NO. 7151-7152 of 2012
(With office report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
SLP(C) NO. 8949-8950 of 2012
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and office
report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
SLP(C) NO. 8951-8952 of 2012
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and office
report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
SLP(C) NO. 8953-8954 of 2012
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and office
report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
SLP(C) NO. 8955-8956 of 2012
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and office
report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
SLP(C) NO. 8958-8959 of 2012
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and office
report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
SLP(C) NO. 8963-8964 of 2012
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and office
report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
SLP(C) NO. 32130-32131 of 2013
(With office report)
Date: 07/01/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Shobha Dikshit,Sr.Adv.
Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kr. Sharma,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek Vishnoi,Adv.
Mr. M.R. Shamshad,Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Agrwal,Adv.
Mr. Shashank Singh,Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv.
Mr. Daleep Kr. Dhyani,Adv.
Mr. Shashank Pandit,Adv.
Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard counsel on either side.
The petitioners herein preferred writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners and also to pay salary to them in their respective grade with effect from 1.4.1991 with all consequential benefits. Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the prayers made in the writ petition. However, the Division Bench set aside the said order based on the ground of the report of the Director of Education holding that the orders dated 7.7.1987 and 14.7.1988 for sanctioning were found to be forged.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, submitted that the finding of the Deputy Director of Education cannot be accepted since he was inimical to the petitioners since bailable warrant was issued to him at the instance of petitioners.
Be it as it may, we may refer to a communication dated 12.01.1995 by the District Inspector of Schools to the Deputy Director of Education which will indicate that as per column 3 of the letter only 10 teaching and non-teaching employees have been approved for payment of salary as per the provisions of Salary Distribution and Payment Act, 1971 vide letter dated 25.08.1993 by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. After stating so in the said letter the Deputy Inspector of Schools recommended for salaries to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college.
We are informed that no orders have been passed on the said recommendation made by the District Inspector Schools due to the pendency of the writ petition. That being the factual situation, we feel it appropriate that a direction to be given to the State Government to examine the request of the Management as well as of the petitioners for payment of salary in accordance with rules.
Learned counsel appearing for the State Government has submitted that since the posts were not sanctioned the petitioners would not be entitled to get the salary even if they had worked and it is for the management to pay the salary during the said period. Since the Government has not examined this issue so far, we feel it appropriate that these special leave petitions can be disposed of with a direction to the State Government to examine the matter afresh with notice to the management as well as to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders taking into consideration all aspects of the matter uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The special leave petitions are disposed of, as above.
|(NARENDRA PRASAD) | |(RENUKA SADANA) |
|COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |
1