Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. ... vs Abhishek Kumar Mishra And Another on 20 February, 2023
Author: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 82 of 2023 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Social Welfare, Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrt.Lko. And Ors Respondent :- Abhishek Kumar Mishra And Another Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Aditya Tiwari,Savitra Vardhan Singh Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
(C.M.A. No. 01 of 2023)
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the special appeal.
2. Having regard to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay we find that the delay has sufficiently been explained. The application is accordingly allowed. The delay is hereby condoned.
(Order on Appeal.)
3. Heard the State Counsel representing the appellants/State Authorities, Sri Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 1 and Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.2.
4. This special appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 12.9.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ-C No. 2974 of 2022 filed by the respondent no. 1-petitioner has been allowed and the appellants-State Authorities have been directed to grant the benefit of scholarship/fee-reimbursement to him for the academic session 2021-22.
5. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants-State respondents is that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order under challenge that there is no provision in the scheme for providing scholarship on preferential basis or till the exhaustion of fund, is contrary to the scheme itself and, as such, the order under challenge in this special appeal is vitiated.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 1-petitioner has submitted that though the aforesaid finding given by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 12.9.2022 is contrary to the scheme under which payment of Maintenance Allowance and fee-reimbursement is made by the State Government, however, on other grounds which were pleaded by the respondent no. 1-petitioner in the writ-petition, he is entitled to be made payment of maintenance allowance and fee reimbursement for his IInd year studies of L.L.M. Course.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records available with us.
8. The respondent no. 1-petitioner has been pursing his L.L.M. Course in Lucknow University, which is a State University created under the U.P. State Universities Act,1973. He applied for grant of maintenance allowance and fee-reimbursement in terms of the then prevalent scheme of the State Government and accordingly for his Ist year course, which comprised of two semesters, he was granted the said benefit, however, when he applied for the said benefit again for the IInd year course, which comprised of Semester 3rd and 4th, the benefit has been declined by the respondent on the grounds, which are not tenable.
9. Out attention has been drawn to para-5 of the counter affidavit, filed before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, wherein it has been admitted by the State Respondents that while submitting his application for grant of maintenance-allowance/fee reimbursement for the IInd year, the respondent no. 2-petitioner disclosed that his result was not declared, however, he submitted the corrected Form on 16.2.2022 and indicated therein that he was promoted with marks '885/1200'.
10. It has further been admitted that by the State-respondents that the District Level Committee verified the said information submitted by the respondent no.1- petitioner in his application by way of correction, on 11.3.2022, however, he was not paid the maintenance allowance and amount of fee reimbursement on account of the fact that the portal concerned was showing against his application, "Blocked due to the result not filed by the student, and not forwarded by the Institution."
11. It is for the aforesaid reason that the respondent no. 1-petitioner has not been given the benefit of the maintenance-grant/fee reimbursement.
12. The last date for submission of the application-form was 21.02.2022. It is admitted by the appellant-State Authorities that correction was incorporated by the respondent No.1-petitioner in his application-form on 16.2.2022, which was also verified by the District Level Committee on 11.3.2022. The reason given before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition by the State Authorities for denying the benefit of the maintenance-grant/fee reimbursement to the respondent no. 1-petitioner is that some wrong information was being displayed on the portal against the name of the respondent no. 1-petitioner.
13. Such a reason, in our considered opinion, is not sustainable. The post-matric scholarship to the students belonging to the General Category was promulgated by the State Government by means of a government order in the year 2011, which has, from time to time, been amended and by means of the IVth Amendment incorporated in the said scheme vide government order dated 26.3.2016 it has been provided in the amended Clause 11 that considering the limited resources available, the students shall be given the benefit of maintenance-grant and fee reimbursement in accordance with the preference given therein, subject to availability of the budgetary allocation. The said Rule further provides that the preference for grant of maintenance-grant and fee-reimbursement will be as follows:
A.) Students studying in the Institutions run by the Central Government or the State Government Departments/Bodies; B.) Students studying in the institutions funded by either the State Government or the Central Government; C.) Students studying in the recognized Institutions, which are run by the private Management.
14. We may also notice at this juncture that the Scholarship Rules were further amended by means of an office-memorandum dated 21.6.2017 and amended Rule 21 clearly provides that the scholarship under the Post Matrix Scholarship Scheme for General Category students shall be provided only to the students who fulfill the requisite conditions and further that it shall be provided in accordance with the preference as mentioned in Rule 11. It also provides that in case the Budget allocated for the said purpose by the State Legislature gets exhausted in a particular case, remaining case shall not be carried forward for the next financial year. Thus, from a cumulative reading of Rule 21 and 11 of the Scholarship Rules we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that there is no provision in the scheme for providing scholarship on preferential basis or till the exhaustion of fund, is contrary to the said scheme itself.
15. However, Having observed as above, we now proceed to decide the claim of the respondent no. 1-petitioner for grant of scholarship.
16. Reason indicated by the State authorities while contesting the matter before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition for not granting the benefit of maintenance grant/fee reimbursement is not that budget at that time had got exhausted. It is also not a reason that the respondent no. 1-petitioner did not fall in the preferential category. We notice for this purpose that the petitioner has been pursuing his L.L.M. course at a State University, namely, Lucknow University which has been created under the State Universities Act 1973 and is funded and financed by the State Government.
17. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the reason indicated by the State for not granting the benefit of the maintenance grant/fee-reimbursement that in the portal incorrect information was being displayed, in our considered opinion, is not tenable as it is the admitted case of the State Government that corrected application was furnished by the respondent no. 1-petitioner on 16.2.2022, whereas the last date for furnishing the application was 21.2.2022. It is also admitted to the State authorities that the information regarding respondent no. 1-petitioner having passed his previous year course was verified by the District Level Authority on 11.3.2022, whereas the last date for making payment was 22.3.2023.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent no. 1-petitioner has wrongly been denied the benefit of maintenance grant/fee-reimbursement, as claimed by him for the IInd year L.L.M. Course. Thus, without interfering in the operative portion of the order dated 12.9.2022 we dispose of this special appeal with the observation that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the said order to the effect that there is no provision in the scheme for providing scholarship on preferential basis or till exhaustion of fund, is not correct, however, the respondent no.1-petitioner is entitled to his claim of fee-reimbursement.
19. The respondent no. 1-petitioner shall now be paid his dues in terms of the order dated 12.9.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, by the State Authorities, within a period of 6 weeks, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
20. No order as to costs.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.) Order Date :- 20.2.2023 A.Nigam