High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Chanda Rani v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 36357 of 1995  RD-AH 9076 (11 May 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
This case was directed to be listed for hearing in the week commencing 7th May,2007 vide following order dated 26.4.2007 :-
"26.4.2007 Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J
The cases of Sri G.K. Singh and Sri V.K. Singh, Advocates are adjourned up to 3.5.07.
List in the week commencing 7.5.07 peremptorily.
Sd/- Rakesh Tiwari, J"
On 7.5.2007, the following order was passed :-
"7.5..2007 Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J
On the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case is passed over for the day.
Sd/- Rakesh Tiwari, J"
Today, Sri G.K. Singh, counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that despite his best efforts to serve Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava in writing, Sri Srivastava did not receive the same and informed that he will remain present in Court whenever the case is taken up.
The case has been taken up in the revised list but Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the respondents is not present.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was a confirmed C.T. Grade teacher from 24.71983 in Durga Charan Girls Inter College, Varanasi (for short 'college'). Her services were terminated vide order dated 2.8.1995 without obtaining any prior approval. The petitioner made a representation and on her representation, the the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi passed two orders- one on 26.9.1995 and the other on 1.11.1995 holding the termination of her services on 2.8.1995 to be illegal as no prior approval was taken. The colleged filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 3465 of 1995- Committee of Management, Durga Charan Girls Inter College, Varanasi Vs. State of U.P. And others challenging the validity and correctness of orders dated 26.9.95 and 1.11.1995 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 5.12.1995. Thereafter, according to the college, they had sent the papers for approval of the appropriate authority on 21.12.1995 but no action has been taken so far.
The counsel for the College states that the petitioner has not been reinstated as she has not come forward to work which is disputed by counsel for the petitione. He states that order dated 2.9.1995 has been passed without taking prior approval of the competent authority. The order per se is illegal. It is vehemently urged by him that the petitione had approached the college numerous times, but college has refused to take work from her.
When the case was taken up on 20.7.1999, the Court was of the view that it was in the interest of justice to direct the Standing counsel to file counter affidavit who was granted three weeks time to file the same. The Court also desired to know as to what action had been taken by the respondent- Distirct Inspector of Schools on the papers sent by the Committee of Management for obtaining approval for termination of services of the petitioner for enfocement of his own orders dated 26.9.95 and 1.11.95. The Court, in its order noted and directed that :-
" In this view, I direct the District Inspector of Schools to give notice to the petitioner as well as to the Committee of Management fixing a date and thereafter see that the petitioner is permitted join the college. The standing counsel while filing the counter affidavit will also indicate as to whether the DIOS Varanasi has complied with this order or not."
In pursuance of the order dated 20.7.1999, the petitioner appeared before the College authorities and was permitted to join on 15.3.2000 but she was paid basic salary of C.T. Grade teacher which was being paid toher earlier without any increment. Thereafter the petitioner approached the District Inspector of Schools by means of representation on which vide order dated 9.2.2004 he directed the Committee of Management to pay arrears of salary along with increment to the petitioner and it was further directed that the petitioner should be kept in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 23.7.1992 as she had completed 10 years of service in C.T. Grade.
Standing counsel has also filed counter affidavit on behalf of District Inspector of Schools in which the factum of petitioner's entitlement to L.T. Grade and arrears of salary together with increment is not denied yet the Committee of Management is not complying with the aforesaid direction of the District Inspector of Schools.
It appears from perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Committee of Management- respondent no. 3 that it has taken the stand that services of the petitioner had been terminated earlier on 2.8.1995, as such, she is not entitled to any salary, much less arrears of salary or any increment.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, the Standing counsel and perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the District Inspector of Schools is not powerless to get his own order executed and it is rather his inaction, which has compelled the petitioner to seek redressal of her grievances in the writ petition.
Once the District Inspector of Schools had disapproved the order of termination of the petitioner, she remains a teacher in the institution in the eyes of law and that termination of her services would, in the circumstances, be void and illegal. It is noted that even in the interim order dated 20.7.199, the Court had directed the Committee of Management to allow the petitioner to join her service and to pay her salary with increment but the Committee of Management failed to comply with the order of this Court.
In the above circumstances, it appears that the Committee of Management is adament not to comply with the order of this Court as well as that of District Inspector of Schools who is the final authority for payment of salary to the teachers.
In these circumstances when the order of termination of services of the petitioner has not been approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Court has no option but to hold that the order of termination of the services of petitioner was illegal and she was entitled to her salary from the date of her termination together with arrears of salary and other consequential benefits.
Accordingly, the Committee of Management of the college is directed to pay entire arrears of salary with increments and other consequential benefits to the petitioner within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
It is directed in the circumstances that in case, respondent no. 3 fails to make payment of salary to the petitioner as per direction of this Court, the District Inspector of School shall exercise his power of single operation and shall ensure payment of aforesid dues to the petitioner within a month thereafter.
The facts narrated above clearly establish that the Committee of Management of the college- respondent no. 3 has adopted lackadaisical approach in the matter causing great prejudice to the petitioner by its conduct of non compliance of orders. Accordingly, cost of Rs. 3000(Rupees Three Thousand) is imposed which shall be deposited by the respondent no. 3 with the Mediation and Concilliation Centre, High Court Allahabad, within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.