Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3925 of 2000 Petitioner :- Surendra Mishra Respondent :- D.I.O.S.And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Amar Nath Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rajiv Misra, learned counsel
appearing for respondents.
This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to pay salary to petitioner as petitioner is still continuing on the
post of Principal in the institution and no departmental enquiry or any enquiry
is pending against him.
It appears that there was some dispute regarding payment of salary to teachers
and subsequently on the basis of direction issued by this Court, grant-in-aid
was paid and that amount has been deposited. Further it appears that certain
teachers have raised dispute regarding their provident fund. A query was
made by District Inspector of Schools and it was informed that amount has
been deposited in the salary account of institution but in spite of aforesaid
fact, salary bill of petitioner who is working on the post of Principal regularly
has been stopped without any reason. It is made clear that no specific order
has been passed stopping salary of petitioner by District Inspector of Schools.
When salary was not paid, petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Though, Sri Rajiv Misra, learned counsel appearing for respondent has filed
an application for impleadment on behalf of certain teachers in the present
writ petition but in my opinion as simple prayer made by petitioner in the
present writ petition is regarding payment of salary, therefore, the person who
wants to be impleaded as party is not a necessary party to be impleaded.
Therefore, no orders are being passed upon impleadment application filed by
applicants.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent- District Inspector
of Schools Varanasi stating therein that salary of petitioner has been stopped
only on the ground that on the basis of enquiry dated 17.1.1997, an amount of
Rs.2,65, 578/- which is a government fund has been withdrawn by petitioner,
therefore, salary of petitioner has been stopped and an FIR to that effect has
also been lodged. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit it has been stated
that an FIR has already been lodged against Principal of the institution and as
well as the Manager of the institution. On the basis of the direction issued by
the Director of Education, senior teacher of the institution has been authorized
to draw salary by his own signature to teachers approved under the grant-in-
aid. Petitioner has not denied the aforesaid facts in his rejoinder affidavit.
But as the controversy involved in the writ petition is such that can only be
decided by the relevant authority, therefore, in that circumstances, the present
writ petition is being disposed of finally directing the respondent No.1 to
decide the claim of petitioner regarding payment of salary, in case, he is
working on the post of Principal as alleged, then District Inspector of Schools
will pass appropriate orders after giving full opportunity to petitioner and
relevant person as well as Committee of Management and will pass a detailed
and reasoned order within a period of three months form the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 6.1.2010
SKD