Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7333 of 2009 Petitioner :- Ambika Prasad & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- D.S.M. Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.K.Agrahari Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
Cause list has been revised.
Heard Sri D.S.M. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavit has
been exchanged between the contesting parties.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the District Inspector of
Schools in not paying their salary from the month of February 2008 on an alleged
oral direction made by the District Inspector of Schools and therefore they have
filed this writ petition for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to release the
salary of the petitioners w.e.f. February 2008.
The petitioners alleged to be duly appointed as Class IV employees of the
institution namely Nagrik Inter College, Janghai, District Jaunpur. They claim that
their appointments were duly approved by the competent authority in the year 2003
and they continued to get their salary till January 2008.
Counter affidavit was invited and the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 have filed
their counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that on a complaint
made against the petitioners the District Inspector of Schools stopped paying the
salary to the petitioners on the ground that approval of their appointment letter by
the District Inspector of Schools on 16.7.2003 was not entered in the dispatch book
of the office of the District Inspector of Schools and hence it raised a suspicion
regarding genuinity of the approval. It has been stated by learned Standing
Counsel that the aforesaid circumstance was sufficient for the District Inspector of
Schools to suspend the payment of the salary to the petitioners till he makes
suitable enquiry on the approval granted to the petitioners by the then District
Inspector of Schools.
From the aforesaid averments it appears that the salary of the petitioners
was stopped due to suspicion which arose on a complaint against the petitioners
and it was found that the letter of approval dated 16.7.2003 was not entered in the
dispatch register in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. The aforesaid
suspicion may or may not be correct however, if the District Inspector of Schools
wanted to enquire in the genuinity of the approval letter dated 16.7.2003, he ought
to have done the same and taken a final decision in the matter. It is not disclosed
in the counter affidavit as to what decision has been taken by the District Inspector
of Schools. Notice was issued to him in this writ petition on 12.2.2009 and even till
date learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to inform this court regarding
any decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools on the aforesaid issue and
as such the petitioners who claim to be validly appointed are without salary for little
more than two years now. The aforesaid situation should not be permitted to
continue any further and therefore by disposing of this writ petition finally it is
directed that the District Inspector of Schools must take a final decision in the
matter as pleaded by him in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit which is quoted
here under:-
“;g fd ;kfpdk ds izzLrj 8 ls 10 rd esa of.kZr dFku esa dguk gS fd la;qDr f’k{kk
funs’kd eaMy okjk.klh ds i=kad@f’kfoj@1710@2003&04 fnukad 09-06-2003 ds }kjk
2;kphx.kksa ds osru Hkqxrku dh vuqefr iznku dh x;h gS A voxr djkuk gS fd la;Dq r
f’k{kk funs’kd okjk.klh eaMy okjk.klh ds mDr vkns’k ds vuqikyu esa ftyk fo/kky;
fujh{kd tkSuiqj ds ftl i= ds }kjk ;kphx.kksa dk osru Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk Fkk A
i=kad@f’kfoj@1183&84@2003&04@fnukad 16-07-2003 mls dk;kZy; ds fMLiSp iaftdk
ij vafdr u gksus ds dkj.k rRdkyhu ftyk fo/kky; fujh{kd }kjk ;kphx.kksa dk osru
Hkqxrku vo:) dj fn;k x;k Fkk A ijUrq i= fMLiSp iaftdk ij vafdr u gksuk
fo/kky;@dk;kZy; dh =qfV gS u fd ;kphx.kkkas dhA
The petitioners may file a certified copy of this order before the District
Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur (respondent no. 3) within two weeks from today and
in case the same is filed the respondent no. 3 is required to take a decision on the
said issue within a period of six weeks thereafter by concluding the enquiry which
he stated was required to be done.
The petitioner may submit a duly stamped, self addressed registered post
envelope before the District Inspector of Schools who should communicate the
decision taken by him to the petitioners immediately thereafter.
It is made clear that this court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of
the claim made by the parties which is required to be decided by the respondent
no. 3.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 5.7.2010
Pravin