Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM CHANDRA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Chandra v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 26113 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 6359 (6 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                          Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 26113 of 2006

Ram Chandra

Versus

State of U.P. and others.

.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has approached this court questioning the validity of the decision dated 10.1.2006 passed by the Director  of Education (Secondary)  U.P. at Allahabad Camp Officer, at Lucknow, disapproving the claim of petitioner for being paid salary under the provision of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971.

Brief background of the case as mentioned by petitioner is that in the District of Kannauj, there is recognised institution known as  Sarvjanik Kisan Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jagdishpur, Bhaurajpur, District Kannauj. Petitioner submits that in the said institution he was appointed as Class IV employee on 1.7.1983 and had been performing and discharging his duty. Petitioner has contended that said institution was to be included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provision of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971  was to be made applicable, at that point of time large scale manipulation has been  sought  to be done by Principal and Manager of the institution. Petitioner  submits that his name has been left out and as such he preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition  No. 49862 of 2004 and Director of Education was asked to decide the matter and thereafter Director of Education has passed order impugned, which is  subject matter of challenge.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Manager of the institution and therein claim of petitioner has been virtually accepted.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondent also and therein plea has been taken to the effect that valid decision has been taken and no interference is warranted.

Service on respondents  no. 6 Principal of the institution is presumed to be sufficient under Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the High Court Rules, as per office report, neither acknowledgement nor any service of notice has been received back.

After  pleadings mentioned above, have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence  that in the present case large scale manipulation has been done and  relation of Principal and Manager has been sought to be adjusted and genuine    employees have been sought to be ignored, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that objective consideration has been done and writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced,  the categorical statement made in  paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the writ petition is being extracted below:-

9.That it was surprising that the name of Kith and kins of Principal, Manager, teaching, non -teaching Staff, employees of District Inspector of Schools office, were incorporated and inserted  in the list of Staff of the Institution with a vested interest to benefit their own men whose names are details below:-

1. Mr. Jay Prakash Rajpoot: Son of Manager of Institution Sri Mewa Ram.

2. Mr. Chhote Lal Rajpoot: Real Nephew of Sri Lal Ram, Sanchalak of college who is real brother-in-law of Mr. Mewa Ram, Manager of College.

3.Mr. Malikhan Singh: Real Nephew of Principal Mr. Bachcha Lal Verma.

4.Mr. Dinesh Chandra: son of Mr. Lal Ram, Sanchalak.

5.Mr. Rakesh Kumar Katiyar: Relation of Mr. Sarvjeet Katiyar, clerk of D.I.O.S. Office.

6. Mrs. Anita: Daughter of Suresh Saxena the retire Clerk of D.I.O.S. Office.

10. That the aforesaid manoeuvring and manipulation were made by the Principal, Manager, teaching and non-teaching Staff of the college and the Staff of D.I.O.S. Office with vested interest to help their own Kith and Kins and to deprive the petitioner of this benefit which he was entitled to avail under law."

Said averments have been dealt with in paragraph. 9 of the counter affidavitfiled on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and most surprising feature is  that  categorical statement of fact of near kith and kins has not at all been disputed, and thus factual position, which is emerging is that kith and kins,  have been prima facie favoured.

Once this is the  factual position and it is specific case of petitioner that he has been functioning since 1983 and thereafter incumbent, who are close relative of Manager,  Principal Prabandha Sanchalak, employees in the office of District Inspector of Schools have been favoured, appears to have some substance and this aspect of the matter ought to have been examined by the Director  of Education (Secondary)  U.P. at Allahabad Camp Officer, at Lucknow, when he was proceeding to examine the matter. Director of Education (Secondary), is holding the highest seat, in the department of Secondary Education, and when this Court asks the aforementioned authority to look into matter, then there has to be meticulous examination of the entire facts and circumstances of the case instead of deciding the matter in casual and cryptic way, as has to be sought to be done in the present way.  In this background, decisions, which have been taken by the Director  of Education (Secondary)  U.P. at Allahabad Camp Officer, at Lucknow, appears to faulty on the face of it.

Consequently, order dated 10.1.2006 passed by the Director  of Education (Secondary)  U.P. at Allahabad Camp Officer, at Lucknow, is hereby quashed. Matter is remanded back to be decided afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner, Manager and Principal of the institution, petitioner and other incumbents whose name has been included under  U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, it is made clear that specific plea, which has been raised by the petitioner should be considered by the Director  of Education (Secondary)  U.P. at Allahabad Camp Officer, at Lucknow after calling for entire record from the institution. It shall  also be seen  as to at what point of time, incumbents in whose favour order had been passed under U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, had been appointed and the way and manner in which they had been appointed. Needless to say that fresh exercise be taken preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With these observations and directions, writ petition is  allowed and disposed of.

Dt. 6.4.2007

T.S.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.