Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 period of three years and more. Not only this, the respondents shown the audacity and courage of even not attending this Court flouting its order to the maximum possible level and it is only when they found no other option, the salary is paid to the petitioner. This Court is thus clearly satisfied that their action by means of the supplementary counter affidavit is not bona fide but just to bury a just and valid grievance of harassment of the petitioner by their extraordinary, not only belated but also illegal and arbitrary act, and they are trying to get the matter consigned so as to wriggle out of the clutches of law in respect to affixing of responsibility and liability upon the officer concerned for not only illegal detention of salary of a person for almost four years but also by harassing and victimizing her for no fault on her part. 14. In my view, here is a case which cannot be allowed to shut in such a manner by simply confining the matter to record without considering as to whether the respondents are in fact guilty of an illegal and arbitrary act, and, if so, how they must be made accountable/responsible for the same. 15. An equity Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not only entitled to look into valid grievances of the citizen but also to pass appropriate orders against the State or its officers and instrumentality as the case may be where they are found to have acted in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner. From the own admission of the respondents in the counter affidavit where they have not shown any fault on the part of the petitioner as a reason for non payment of salary to her since March' 2005, the denial of salary to the petitioner is evidently arbitrary and also infringes her constitutional right under Articles 21 and 300A which provides that no person shall be deprived of her property except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. In the case in hand, the petitioner has been deprived of her lawful salary and wages, which she has earned after rendering service, in a manner which is not prescribed in law. 16. Now, I may give in brief the explanation given by the respondents for non payment of salary to the petitioner. The petitioner was initially working as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School, Billi Obra and was promoted as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) on 7.2.2004. It appears that a Government Order was issued on 9.6.2004 that the Teachers in the Primary Schools be allowed to be adjusted/accommodated according to the strength of the students in the schools and may be shifted to other schools where there is deficiency. The Board of Basic Education issued certain directions on 24.7.2004 that the Teachers who are posted/appointed after July 2003 if are found in excess may be transferred/adjusted and those who have the longest period of posting should first be adjusted. It appears that the Secretary, Basic Education, Allahabad passed an order on 11.2.2005 stating that in the Junior High School, Billi, 8 teachers working and five of such Teachers were to be adjusted by the District Basic Education Officer but since Sri Shailendra Rai and Rajani Rajvanshi were two teachers who were posted after July, 2003 therefore first of all the said two teachers be adjusted and thereafter adjustment of rest of three teaches should be made. Pursuant to the said order of Secretary,
3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State of U.P. and others 1005 Basic Education, Allahabad, the respondent no. 3 passed an order on 2.3.2005 cancelling adjustment of Smt. Nirmala Devi-II, another teacher working in the Junior School, Billi, Sonebhadra. He also directed for compliance of the Secretary, Board of Basic Education's letter dated 11.2.2005. It is also said that in view of the aforesaid orders, no further teacher was required to be adjusted from aforesaid Junior High School since the strength of teachers was as per the requirement and standard fixed, therefore, the petitioner continued to work in the said institution and it was in the interest of the students at large. It is also said that in June 2006, the strength of Junior School reduced to three due to promotion and transfer of Sri Munni Lal, a senior Teacher of Junior High School, Billi, Chopan as Head Master to Junior High School, Obradeeh, Vikas Kshetra Chopan, Sonebhadra. It is further said that the petitioner's functioning in the institution concerned was justified in all these circumstances and, therefore, when the salary bills of the petitioner were received in the office of respondent no. 3, the same were countersigned by respondent no. 3, in particular Sri Vinod Sharma holding office of respondent no. 3, and, the file sent to the office of respondent no. 5 for payment of salary but it is he (respondent no. 5) who is not making payment to the petitioner. Para 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit of respondents no. 3 are reproduced as under: "10. That is is most respectfully submitted that since there was no requirement and occasion for adjustment of the petitioner for the reasons stated above and as such she remained posted in the institution in question and was discharging her duties and accordingly, her attendance was also certified by the Regional Asstt. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Chopan, Sonebhadra and her salary bill was submitted in the office of the deponent upon which the same was counter-signed by the deponent and was sent of the the office of Finance and Accounts Officer of the office of B.S.A. Sonebhadra for payment of her salary. 11. That it is relevant to mention here that the Finance and Accounts Officer of the office of the deponent without there being any order of the competent authority, deleted the salary of the petitioner and made payment of salary to the rest of the teachers working in Vikas Kshetra Chopan and their salary were transmitted in the Bank accounts concerned." 17. It is said that on the representation made by the petitioner to respondent no. 3, repeated directions were issued to respondent no. 5 but he did not take steps for payment of salary to the petitioner. When the matter was brought to the notice of District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, he also passed an order on 6.1.2006 for disbursement of salary to the petitioner but even thereafter the respondent no. 5, adopting an adamant attitude, did not pay salary to the petitioner. The stand taken by respondent no. 3 in para 14, 15 and 16 of his counter affidavit is reproduced as under: "14. That it is relevant to mention here that the abovenoted direction issued by the District Magistrate was also apprised to the Finance and Accounts Officer vide Letter dated 18.1.2006 issued by the office of the deponent but despite of the same, he has not paid the salary to the petitioner.
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 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 31: 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 83 and 84:
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
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?