State of U.P. and another vs Ram Murti Shukla and another

H.L. Gokhale, CJ

Heard Dr. Y.K. Srivastava in support of this Appeal. Mr. S.D. Kautilya appears for the first respondent who is the main contesting respondent. The second respondent is the Committee of Management of Higher Secondary School situated in Mahrauda, Allahabad.

The Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ Petition No.25589 of 1998 filed by contesting respondent was allowed.

The short facts leading this Appeal are likewise. Respondent no.1 Ram Murti Shukla joined the Junior Section of the Tyagi Madhyamik Vidyalaya situated in Mahrauda in Allahabad in the year 1972. On 18th May, 1976, his services were terminated by the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management was required to obtain the approval of the said termination order from the District Basic Education Officer. The District Basic Education Officer did not approve the termination and directed the Committee of Management to reinstate the respondent Ram Murti Shukla by the order 4th December, 1981. The Committee of Management made a representation against that order to the State Government. This representation was treated as an Appeal which was dismissed on 31st August, 1984.

The Committee of Management then filed Writ Petition No.12657 of 1984 to challenge both these orders. This petition was allowed in part by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 7th October, 1994 and a direction was issued that Ram Murti Shukla should be reinstated within one month and salary be paid on joining the School. Thus, though Ram Murti Shukla had claimed salary from the date of termination of his service, the learned Single Judge did not grant that claim and ordered that he will be entitled to claim salary when he joined the School.

However, Ram Murti Shukla was not even paid this salary though he had joined the School on 1st November, 1994. He, therefore, filed a representation which was rejected by the Joint Director of Education by the order dated 17th June, 1998. Writ Petition No.25589 of 1998, out of which the present Special Appeal arises, was filed to challenge this order. This petition was allowed by the same learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2000. The learned Judge set aside the order passed by the Joint Director of Education and directed that he should be paid his salary for the post on which he was working since the date of his reinstatement in the Institution on 1st November, 1994 within one month from the date of production of the order. Being aggrieved by that judgment and order, this Appeal has been filed by the State.

Dr. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State, principally, submitted that this Institution came under the grantinaid list from 1st April, 1996 and when the names of the teacher of the School were forwarded by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools, the name of Ram Murti Shukla was not forwarded though the name of Sharda Prasad Srivastava was forwarded. It is his submission that as the salary of Sharda Prasad Srivastava had been paid, the State cannot be asked to make double payment.

It is not possible to accept this submission of Dr. Srivastava for the simple reason that the officers of the State were fully aware that Ram Murti Shukla was a teacher in the same Institution and the termination of his service was not approved by the Basic Education Officer and that order had been left undisturbed by the State Government. It had the knowledge that the petition filed by the Committee of Management to challenge these orders resulted in a direction that Ram Murti Shukla should be paid salary when he joined the School. That order was passed on 7th October, 1994. The Basic Education Officer was a respondent in that petition so he cannot feign ignorance of the order. It is stated by Dr. Srivastava that in the meanwhile the School had become a Higher Secondary School and District Inspector of Schools came into picture. These all the matters of internal Management of the Education Officers of the Government. The Basic Education Officer should have brought this information to the knowledge of the District Inspector of Schools and Ram Murti Shukla cannot be made to suffer.

In the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the submission of Dr. Srivastava. Ram Murti Shukla is not responsible for the situation at all. He is entitled to the salary from 1st November, 1994 as directed by the learned Single Judge and as so much time has gone from the date of order he is also entitled to interest. As far as the State is concerned, the liability of the State will start from 1st April, 1996 when the School came under the grantinaid list. The amount payable thereafter will have to be paid by the State Government with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum. This amount should be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, Ram Murti Shukla will be paid his current salary month to month beginning with the present month i.e. February, 2009.

It is the case of the State Government that double payment cannot be made. It will, therefore, be open to the State Government to recover this amount from the School Management or from the Basic Education Officer or the District Inspector of Schools as the case may be. For the said purpose the State will hold an enquiry to find out whether any of them were negligent in taking the steps after giving them opportunity.

The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/.