Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 the respondent no. 3 as wholly innocent in the matter for the reason that he, being a superior and higher officer, if found that someone in his office is not acting properly and is causing a glaring injustice and illegality, it was incumbent upon him to apprise the State Government of such act of the respondent no. 5 recommending a suitable disciplinary action against him, but the respondent no. 3 also kept silence in this matter and it is only when he was personally summoned, took steps which he could have taken earlier for paying the salary to the petitioner. To this extent, the respondent no. 3 is also guilty and is to be held responsible. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that here is a case where the conduct of the respondents makes them liable for an exemplary cost which I quantify to Rs. two lacs. This would also be compensatory to the petitioner. The liability is distributed to the extent of Rs. 1.5 lacs against respondent no. 5 and fifty thousands against respondent no. 3. The above cost shall be paid by them within six months failing which it would be open to the Registrar General of this Court to take steps to realize the same amount as arrears of land revenue. After realizing the amount of cost, the same may be released in favour of the petitioner. Case law discussed: AIR 1979, SC 49, JT 2009 (13) SC 643, 2009 (2) SCC 592, JT 2007(3) SC 112, AIR 1979 SC 429, AIR 2006 SC 182, AIR 2006 SC 898, (2007)9 SCC 497; (2009) 6 SCALE 17; (2009)7 SCALE 622, JT(2009) 12 SC 198, 1972 AC 1027, 1964 AC 1129, JT 1993 (6) SC 307, JT 2004 (5) SC 17, (1996) 6 SCC 558, AIR 1996 SC 715. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Markandey Rai for the petitioner, Learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Standing Counsel representing respondents no. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri C.K. Rai, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. 2. As agreed by learned counsels for the parties, since the pleadings are complete, the writ petition is being heard and decided finally under the Rules of the Court at this stage. 3. Though the controversy, which has engaged the attention of this Court by means of the present writ petition is very short but shows the ways and means adopted by the respondents for harassing their employees to the extent of not only putting him/her to great inconvenience but making the entire family to suffer to the extent of starvation without there being any illegality or irregularity on the part of such an employee. 4. The petitioner, Smt. Shailendra Rai, an Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School has approached this Court on account of non payment of her salary by the respondents since March' 2005 without there being any fault on her part. A writ of mandamus has been prayed directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner since March' 1985. 5. To start with, this Court directed the respondents to file counter affidavit informing the Court as to why salary has not been paid to the petitioner. On 21.8.2006, the following order was passed by this Court: "Sri C.K. Rai Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5. Respondents may seek instruction as to why payment of salary is not being effected in favour of the petitioner. The
3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State of U.P. and others 1001 District Basic Education Officer, Sonebhadra may also file his affidavit along with the objection of the Finance and Audit Officer in his office, referred to in the letter dated 27.4.2006 List on 31st August, 2006." 6. When the matter again came up on 27.10.2006, a vague and incomplete reply was filed which was noticed by this Court in its order dated 27.10.2006 as under : "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has not been served with counter affidavit filed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sonebhadra. Moreover, the affidavit filed is not accompanied with the objection of the Finance and Audit Officer referred to in the letter of the District Basic Education Officer dated 27th April, 2006, as was directed under order of this Court dated 21st August, 2006. Let Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 file a better affidavit in strict compliance of the order of this Court dated 21st August, 2006, by 20th November, 2006. Put up on 20th November, 2006." 7. Noticing that there was no fault shown on the part of the petitioner for non payment of salary, but inter alia shifting of responsibility sought to be indulged by the respondents, this Court on 11.11.2007 passed the following order : "In the present case short counter affidavit has been filed and the same is only on behalf of respondent no. 3. In pith and substance the said short counter affidavit supports the version of the petitioner and entire burden has been fastened upon Finance and Accounts Officer, based at the office of District Basic Education Officer, Sonebhadra for ensuring payment of salary to petitioner. Backdrop of the case reflects that some adjustment has been made and the reason why Finance and Accounts Officer is not ensuring payment of salary to petitioner is not all before this Court, as such it would be expedient that the version of Finance and Accounts Officer should come before this Court. In these circumstances and in this background, Finance and Accounts Officer, Office of District Basic Education Officer indicating as to why salary is not being ensured to petitioner. While preparing counter affidavit details furnished in short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 3 shall also be explained. For this purpose, learned counsel for petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this short counter affidavit upon Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Sonebhadra within three weeks from today. In the event of service of short counter affidavit alongwith a copy of this order in all eventuality counter affidavit has to be filed by Finance and Accounts Officer within next three weeks. List after one month." 8. Thereafter, on 13.8.2009, 5.10.2009 and 9.10.2009 having found that the respondents were neither able to give any justification for non payment of salary to the petitioner nor had made any effort to pay her salary, the following orders were passed : "The only grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being given salary since March 2005, though she is a regularly appointed teacher in a Junior High School maintained by the Basic Shiksha
Page 1 and 2: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 7 and 8: 3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 31 and 32: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 79 and 80:
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?