Ravindra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

Ran Vijai Singh, J.—The Petitioner who happens to be L.T. grade teacher in Sri Dugdheswar Nath Intermediate College, Rudrapur, Deoria, has filed the present writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the arrears of salary of L.T. grade to the Petitioner with effect from 5.2.1991 to 5.11.1992, i.e., from the date of joining to the date of approval.

Sri K.N. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner was appointed by the committee of management on 3.2.1991. In pursuance of the appointment letter the Petitioner has joined on 5.2.1991. However, no approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria on his appointment, hence, the Petitioner filed the Writ Petition No. 29112 of 1992, challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 16.6.1992. The writ petition was allowed on 30.9.1999. During the pendency of the writ petition an interim mandamus was operating directing the Respondents No. 2 and 3 not to interfere in the Petitioner''s working in the said institution or to show-cause within a period of six weeks. It appears that after the interim order was passed, the Petitioner was allowed to continue further as the financial concurrence was accorded by the District Inspector of Schools on 6.11.1992 ; thereafter, the Petitioner has been paid salary with effect from the date of the approval.

Sri Mishra contends that the Petitioner''s entitlement of salary is from the date of joining and not from the date of approval. In his submissions the District Inspector of Schools was obliged to pass an order of approval well within time and in not doing so he has failed to discharge his duties as given under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and regulations framed there under and for that the Petitioner should not be put to suffer. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sashi Kant Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1992 ACJ 529.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned standing counsel. It is well-settled that if a person has been appointed in accordance with law and the statute cast upon a duty on the competent authority to approve or disapprove the same, then that authority is obliged to discharge his duties in accordance with law as early as possible. The delay in performance of duty cannot be a ground for refusal of salary to a person who has been appointed in accordance with law and permitted to perform his duties. The case law cited by the Petitioner''s counsel is fully applicable under the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, which provides that the entitlement of the salary is from the date of joining/starting of working and not from the date of approval.

In view of that, writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

The Respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary to the Petitioner subject to work certificate furnished by Committee of Management with effect from 5.2.1091 to 5.11.1992.