1
Court No.18
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.20064 OF 2009
Sri Shivratan Singh & Ors.
Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. The only grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they
have not been paid salary for the period September, 1999 to February,
2000 and from July, 2000 to January, 2001 though they have worked on
their respective posts and are entitled for salary. It is further submitted
that by means of the impugned order, the payment of salary has been
denied only for the reason that a criminal case being No.3011 of 2000 is
pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad and so
long as this case is pending, no direction can be issued for payment of
salary.
2. It appears that earlier also this Court in writ petition No.14135 of
2007 filed by these petitioners for payment of salary for the above period
passed an order on 24th September, 2008 to the following effect:
“In view of the above, without going into the merits of the
case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if
there is no other legal impediment in paying the salary to the
petitioners for the aforesaid period, the authorized controller is
directed to send the salary bills of the petitioners for the
aforesaid period to the District Inspector of Schools and the
District Inspector of Schools, after making due verification,
shall sanction the same in accordance with law. The whole
exercise will be completed within three months from the date
a certified copy of this order is produced.”
3. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the
concerned authority again reiterating the same fact about the pendency
of the criminal case though it is not disputed by the learned Standing
Counsel having gone through the entire counter affidavit that no order
has been passed by this Court or any other Court of law creating any
obstruction for payment of salary for the period in dispute to the
petitioners. Working of the petitioners during the said period is not
disputed.
4. In the circumstances, I find no reason apparent for denying salary
2
of the above period to the petitioners. The mere fact that a criminal case
is pending does not entitle the respondents to deny salary to the
petitioners for the period they have actually worked unless the Court
passes an interim order or otherwise entitling the respondents not to
make payment of salary to the petitioners for certain period as the case
may be. The reason assigned in the impugned order passed by the
respondents is clearly flimsy, imaginary and wholly illegal, showing a
total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents. It is really
surprising that an authority like District Inspector of Schools without
understanding the things can pass such a flimsy order which has no legal
or otherwise basis. No other reason has been shown to this Court
justifying the act of the respondents for denial of salary to the petitioners
for the period in dispute.
5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 24.12.2008, Annexure 10 to the writ petition, is accordingly
set aside. The respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner
from the period September, 1999 to February, 2000 and from July, 2000
to January, 2001 without any further delay after further verifying the fact
that the petitioners had discharged duties for the said period, within two
months.
Dated.27.01.2010
KA