Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 also envisage the examination of the matter by the District Inspector of Schools on merits, and it is for this reason that all documents are required to be sent to the District Inspector of Schools, as per Regulation 37. However for Class-IV employees, such documents would not be required to be sent to the District Inspector of Schools and the entire procedure has to be followed by the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Head of the Institution in the instant case. Sri Ojha, therefore, submits that this provision itself specifically excludes the exercise of power by the District Inspector of Schools to grant prior approval, as he cannot enter into the merits of the charges nor the papers in respect thereof are required to be sent to the District Inspector of Schools. He submits that, fortified with the decisions in the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari (supra) and Principal, Shitladin Inter College (supra), his submissions should be accepted and the ratio in the aforesaid two decisions should be approved as laying down the correct law. 43. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State with the aid of his written submissions and the decisions cited at the Bar, raised the same submissions, and urged that the District Inspector of Schools is under no legal obligation to grant prior approval in respect of the proposal of punishment against a Class - IV employee. He submits that the word 'employees' occurring in the opening part of Regulation 31 would stand restricted to such employees about whom reference has been made in the latter Regulations and a Class-IV employee would stand excluded by virtue of the specific provision contained in Regulation 100. He contends that the ratio of the decision in the case of Daya Shankar Tewari's (supra) does not lay down the correct position of law inasmuch as the Court could not have read into a provision by employing any tool of interpretation, so as to include something, which has been specifically excluded. He contends that the wisdom of the legislature cannot be doubted as the legislature will be presumed to be conscious of the existence of Regulation 31, while framing Regulation 100, and when there is a conscious departure by excluding the applicability of Regulation 31, then in that event, it would be inappropriate for this Court to read into a provision, which has not been made applicable. He submits that in the event the interpretation as contended by the other side is accepted, the same would result in incongruity and would not be in accordance with the Scheme of the Act and Regulations referred to hereinabove. 44. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate for us to declare the law on the basis of first principles underlying the interpretation on the basis whereof the dispute has to be resolved. This is necessary in view of the conflict of the two Division Bench decisions, as pointed out in the referring order. 45. Before proceeding to do so, we may, at the very outset, record that another Division Bench decision relating to the same subject, which arose out of a reference in a second appeal and which was not cited at the Bar, has come to our notice and which, in our opinion, substantially answers the issues referred before us. The same is reported in 2006 (65) ALR Page 767 Pujari Yadav Vs. Ram Briksh Yadav decided on 09.10.2006. The said decision has distinguished the ratio of
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.State of U.P. and others 1063 the decisions in the case of Daya Shankar Tewari (supra) as approved in Principal Rashtriya Inter College (supra), by tracing the legislative history of Section 16-G of the Act and Regulation 31, and has proceeded to approve and follow the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari (supra), thereby holding that it is not necessary to seek prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools before terminating the services of a Class-IV employee. Our task therefore, has been rendered more convenient and our burden is lessened. 46. The Scheme of the provisions as contained in Regulation 31 clearly demonstrates that the said Regulation uses the word 'employees' in the opening sentence, where the recital is that prior sanction from the Inspector would be essential for awarding any of the punishments as enumerated from Sl. No. 1 to 4 therein. The word 'employees' has not been defined under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. However, the said word employee has been defined under Section 2 (f) of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 as follows : "2. Definitions .- ''employee' of an institution means a non-teaching employee in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government to the institution ;" 47. In our opinion, the word 'employees' occurring in the opening words of Regulation 31 does not include Class - IV employees, as it is clearly distinct in its operation as compared to the definition of the word 'employees' occurring in Section 2(f) of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. The reason is not far to see. In the Regulations framed under Chapter III, a specific procedure has been carved out for taking disciplinary action against Class-IV employees, whereas in U.P. Act No.24 of 1971, the purpose is distinct, namely the payment of salary to all the employees who receive the same, as a result of extension of benefit of grant-inaid given by the government. Thus, the purpose for which the said words have been used in the two enactments are clearly different and, therefore, the word ''employee' as understood in U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 is altogether in a different context. It is well settled that the same words used in separate statutes may not connote the same meaning as they operate in different fields. 48. Regulation 31 was amended twice, firstly by notification dated 1st March, 1975 and subsequently vide notification dated 27th February, 1978. The Division Bench judgment in the case of Pujari Yadav Vs. Ram Briksh Yadav (supra) clarified and interpreted the aforesaid amendments in Regulation 31 and the impact thereof was discussed in paragraph 21 to 23 of the said decision which is as follows : "21. The Board has framed regulations under section 15 of the Act. Regulation 31 of Chapter - III of the Regulation (see Appendix-II of the judgment) provides that the prior approval of the Inspector will be necessary for the punishments enumerated therein. This includes dismissal also which is the case in present. Regulation 31 unlike section 16- G(3) of the Act is not confined to the teachers and Head of Institutions but refers to the 'employees' which prima
Page 1 and 2:
3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
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 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
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 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
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 89: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 99 and 100: 3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 107 and 108: 3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110: 3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 115 and 116: 3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?