Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand And Others ... vs Smt. Kamla Tyagi And Others on 8 November, 2019
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 289 of 2019
With
Delay Condonation Application No. 4405 of 2019
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Appellants
Vs.
Smt. Kamla Tyagi and others ...Respondents
Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand-
appellants.
Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners.
Dated: 08th November, 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Application to condone the delay of 716 days in preferring the Special Appeal is not opposed and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay Condonation Application stands disposed of
2. This Special Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 892 of 2008 dated 17.03.2017. The respondents-writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 892 of 2008 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay them full salary along with all allowances and benefits as are being paid to Teachers of aided basic schools along with arrears; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant them the benefit of selection grade and time scale as is being paid to other teachers serving in Aided Basic Schools; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant them pension and other retiral benefits as admissible to teachers serving in any other Aided Basic Schools.
3. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the respondents-writ petitioners were working in a 2 government aided school since 1966; they were being paid only 50% of their salary; according to Paragraph No. 308 of the Education Code, 50% of the salary was to be paid by the State Government and remaining was to be paid by the Management from their own resources; and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in its order in Smt. Sushila Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others (order in C.M.W.P NO. 11031 of 1996 dated 16.11.1998), had examined the scope of Paragraph no. 308 of the Education Code, and had directed the respondents to pay full salary, dearness allowance and all other allowances, bonus, interim relief etc. both for the teaching and non-teaching staff. The Writ Petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to pay full salary, dearness allowance and all other allowances, bonus, interim relief, including the benefits of Selection Grade as well as retiral benefits in terms of the judgment in Smt. Sushila Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others (order in C.M.W.P NO. 11031 of 1996 dated 16.11.1998) within a period of ten weeks. Aggrieved thereby, the State Government is now in appeal before us.
4. Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-State of Uttarakhand, would submit that the respondent- Institution runs a school from Nursery to Vth class; it is only the Junior High School, i.e. from Classes VI to VIII, which is admitted to grant-in-aid; the respondents-writ petitioners are all working in the primary section of the respondent-school i.e. from Nursery to Class V; what was being paid to them for teaching these classes is only a maintenance grant and not grant-in-aid and, in terms of the maintenance grant, only 50% of the salary and other emoluments are required to be paid by the Government, and the remaining 50% is to be paid by the Committee of Management.
5. Failure on the part of the Committee of Management, if any, to pay the balance 50% of the salary cannot result in these hapless employees being deprived of even their monthly salary and 3 emoluments. If, as is now contended before us by Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, the remaining 50% of the salary and other emoluments of the respondents-writ petitioners is required to be paid by the Committee of Management, suffice it to make it clear that the order under appeal shall not disable the appellants herein from recovering the said amount, from the Committee of Management, in accordance with law.
6. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to whether or not the Committee of Management is liable to pay the balance 50% of the salary of the respondents-writ petitioners. All that we have said is that, if the claim of the appellants that 50% of the salary is to be paid by the Committee of Management is true, the order under appeal shall not disable them from recovering the said amount, from the Committee of Management, in accordance with law.
7. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 08.11.2019 08.11.2019 Rahul