Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kiran (Dubey) Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144320 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11545 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Kiran (Dubey) Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Chand Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Prem Chand Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.K. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1, 2 and 3.
In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the fourth respondent.
The case of the writ petitioner is that the fourth respondent-institution, namely Amar Sanskrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya,Kejuri, Ballia is in grant-in-aid till Primary Section. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that pursuant to the selection conducted therein, the writ petitioner was issued appointment as Assistant Teacher in Primary Section on 17.09.1999 and he was accorded joining on 22.9.1999. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that with regard to certain complaints being made with respect to the appointments being made, the same occasioned filing of writ petition before this Court and the same travelled before the Special Appellate Bench in Special Appeal No. 531 of 2005, State of U.P. Vs. Tarkeshwar Nath Singh and others, wherein certain orders were passed. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that he was not paid salary so he along with Smt. Bharti Jaiswal and others preferred Writ A No. 66522 of 2015 (Smt. Bharti Jaiswal and another Vs. State of U.P. and others), which came to be disposed off granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer representation before the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Ballia. The writ petitioner claims to have preferred representation, but when nothing was done, then the writ petitioner resorted to contempt proceeding in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1178 of 2018, in which notices were issued pursuant whereto the third respondent, proceeded to pass an order dated 28.10.2017 noticing the fact that the writ petitioner was appointed on 17.09.1999 and he assumed the charge on 22.09.1999, however, approval was accorded with certain conditions that the same will be subject to the order passed in the litigations being preferred or pending and would automatically stand revoked in case of concealment. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that on 12.04.2018, the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, third respondent accorded approval with the said condition. According to the petitioner, he has been paid salary, however, the same was arbitrarily stopped in the month of April 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court towards Annexure-7 at page-33, reference whereof is given in paragraph-21 of the writ petition so as to contend that the fourth respondent has corresponded on 06.07.2023 with the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Ballia on the ground that since an exercise is being undertaken for making investigation and inquiry with regard to the appointment of the petitioner, thus, the payment of salary is being stopped.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure was adopted by the fourth respondent is novel as there has been no specific order putting the salary of the writ petitioner on hold as neither the writ petitioner has been put to notice nor there is any order in that regard and in an exparte manner, the writ petitioner's salary has been stopped.
Prayer int he present petition is to quash the impugned order / letter dated 06.07.2023 of the fourth respondent.
Sri H.K. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the said order might be as alleged by the petitioner has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, but what is to be seen is the nature of appointment and also the fact as to whether any final order has been passed or not by the competent authority. According to him, no fruitful purpose would be served in detaining the petition on board, as the approval order is a conditional order subject to various conditions including the passing of the orders in pending writ petitions or also with regard to concealment of the fact. According to him, he does not propose to file any response and writ petitioner be granted liberty to approach the third respondent, who shall consider its claim of writ petitioner and pass order on it.
To such a suggestion, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.
Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Ballia while filing the application along with certified copy of the order as well as self-attested copy of the writ petition, on receipt of the same, the third respondent shall put to notice the fourth respondent in writing in advance and thereafter seek version of the fourth respondent and after fixing a date and exchanging the documents, which the parties would require, proceed to decide the claim of the writ petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.
Needless to point out that as this petition has been disposed off without seeking any response and without hearing the fourth respondent, thus passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has adjudicated the writ petition on merits.
Order Date :- 20.7.2023 N.S.Rathour