# Anita Devi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 452
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-16
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 15838 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anita-devi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51821
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Service Law - U.P. Board of Secondary
Sanskrit Education Act, 2000 - Sections 2(F)
& 25 - Payment of salary - Petitioner's
appointment was made under compelling
circumstances that after bifurcation, entire
staff
was
transferred
to
the
section,
imparting education U.P.to Acharya and
Sastri level, and no teachers or employees
were left for the section, imparting the
Sankrit education U.P. to Uttar Madhyamik
level - Identically situated candidates have
been paid salary, however the petitioners
were denied - Validity challenged - Held,
the opposite parties have failed to establish
that the present matter is not identical to
the petitioners of the writ petition no.
8253/SS/2007
and
writ
petition
no.
6250/SS/2013 - The petitioners of the
aforesaid writ petitions are getting salary
from the St.-Exchequer as the St. has taken
decision positively on the claim raised by
those petitioners. The case of the present
petitioners are ditto identical to those
petitioners of writ petition no. 8253 of 2007
and thus, the present petitioners are
entitled for same relief. (Para 15, 24 and 28)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the power of Judicial Review would
intervene and the Court would ensure that
no authority exercises any power in the
name of statute which does not vest in it
any
such
power
especially
in
the
circumstances where such exercise of
power
results
in
adverse
civil
consequences. This is one such case.
Point 'B' is decided accordingly.

48. In view of the above, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The resolution
adopted by the Executive Council dated
27.09.2019
is
hereby
quashed.
The
consequential order to the resolution passed
by the Registrar dated 21.10.2019 is also
hereby quashed.

49. Petitioner shall be reinstated in
service and shall be paid salary regularly
including the entire arrears of salary for the
period he has remained out of job for the
impugned
resolution
adopted by
the
Executive Council and the consequential
order passed by the Registrar.

50. However, since there is no
challenge to the earlier resolution adopted
by the University dated 07.06.2019, the
same
shall
stand
and
so
also
the
consequential order passed by the Registrar
dated 16.07.2019 shall stand and shall be
implemented accordingly.

51. There will be no order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 452
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 15838 of 2020
Anita Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rohit Tripathi, Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqv

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Abhay Raj Singh

A. Service Law - U.P. Board of Secondary
Sanskrit Education Act, 2000 - Sections 2(F)
& 25 - Payment of salary - Petitioner's
appointment was made under compelling
circumstances that after bifurcation, entire
staff
was
transferred
to
the
section,
imparting education U.P.to Acharya and
Sastri level, and no teachers or employees
were left for the section, imparting the
Sankrit education U.P. to Uttar Madhyamik
level - Identically situated candidates have
been paid salary, however the petitioners
were denied - Validity challenged - Held,
the opposite parties have failed to establish
that the present matter is not identical to
the petitioners of the writ petition no.
8253/SS/2007
and
writ
petition
no.
6250/SS/2013 - The petitioners of the
aforesaid writ petitions are getting salary
from the St.-Exchequer as the St. has taken
decision positively on the claim raised by
those petitioners. The case of the present
petitioners are ditto identical to those
petitioners of writ petition no. 8253 of 2007
and thus, the present petitioners are
entitled for same relief. (Para 15, 24 and 28)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Special Appeal No. 122 of 2010; Rajiv Ahmad
& anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on
12.09.2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rohit Tripath, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raj Kumar
Singh, advocate, holding brief of Sri Abhay
4 All. Anita Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
453
Raj Singh, counsel for opposite party no. 5,
Sri
Shailendra
Kumar
Singh,
Chief
Standing Counsel and Sri Vivek Shukla,
learned additional chief standing counsel
for the State.

2. Under challenge is the order dated
18.12.2019, whereby the claim of the
petitioners for payment of salary from State
exchequer, has been been rejected.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits
that the institution was established in year
1978
as
Sanskrit
College
Imparting
Education from class-VI (Prathma) to PostGraduate (Acharya) level and it was
affiliated
to
Sampurnanad
Sanskrit
University, Varanasi and started receiving
financial grant from the State Government
and the integrated system from School to
Post Graduate level continued for almost
20 years, but later on, for regulating the
system of Sanskrit Education and to
maintain the standards of such institution,
the U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit
Education Ordinance, 2000, subsequently
Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit
Education Act, 2000 (hereinafter, referred
to as 'Act 2000'), was promulgated wherein,
five categories were classified as Prathmik,
Purva Madhyamik, Uttar Madhyamik,
Shashtri and Acharya.

4. After the aforesaid enactment,
looking into the vacancies, the institution
started the process of recruitment against
the post of Teaching and Non-Teaching
staff and thereafter, the petitioners applied
for and were duly selected. The details of
the petitioners with the description of their
post and appointment are given herein
under:-

Petiti
oner
No.
Name
Post
Date
of
Appointme
nt
1.
Anita Devi
Asstt.
Teacher
(Modern Studies)
03.07.2000
2.
Anita Singh
Asstt. Teacher
05.08.2001
3.
Narvadesh
war
Nath
Sharma
Principal
03.07.2000
4.
Rajeev
Bhatt
Asstt.
Teacher
(Litt)
03.07.2000
5.
Krishna
Pratap
Pandey
Asstt.
Teacher
(Litt)
22.01.2000
6.
Karunesh
Chaturvedi
Asstt. Teacher
08.08.2005
7.
Akhilesh
Kumar
Pandey
Asstt.
Teacher
(Litt.)
13.07.2006
8.
Vinod
Kumar
Pandey
Clerk
15.07.2000
9.
Nagesh
Tripathi
Clerk
22.07.2000
10.
Krishna
Deo Pathak
Peon
02.07.2000
11.
Hari
Ram
Mishra
Peon
02.07.2000

5.

After
the
recruitment,
the
petitioners joined and they are continuously
working on their respective posts up till
date. He submits that by means of option
letter dated 17.07.2002, the classification of
institution was resolved/decided to run the
institution for two levels and the option
indicated in the letter dated 17.07.2002,
shows
that
the
state
Government
approved/recognized two sections uptill
Prathama to Uttar Madhyama section and
this was segregated from Graduate and Post
Graduate sections i.e. Shastri and Acharya
and thereafter, the petitioners became
employees of the intermediate section by
virtue of operation of the Act, 2000, but
once they sought payment of salary from
the State Exchequer, their claims were
rejected while giving the reasons that since
they are not duly appointed, therefore, and
their appointments are irregular.

6. Further contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners is that since
section 25 of the Act, 2000 itself speaks
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that 'Subject to provision of this Act, the
head of the institution and teachers and
other employees of an institution shall be
appointed
in
accordance
with
the
regulation'.

7. Referring the aforesaid provision,
the counsel for the petitioners submits that
since the regulation is admittedly came in
to the existence on 15.01.2010 and the
appointments which were done likewise
appointments of the petitioners from the
date of promulgation of the Act, 2000 and
up till the promulgation of the regulation
in year 2010, the State has denied to make
payment of salary to such appointments.
He added that the aforesaid view is not
justified as the petitioners were appointed
to impart education by duly constituted
selection committee and further since,
there was no regulation came into effect
uptill 2010, therefore, the only source
remains
for
appointment
in
such
institution with respect to Teaching and
Non-Teaching Staff was Committee of
Management,
having
administrative
control over the institution concerned.

8. He further argued that it is not the
case, where there is any denial with
respect
to
the
appointment
by
the
Committee of Management, but the
reasons for denial of payment of salary is
that the source of appointment is not as
per the law. He submits that in fact the
question arises that once the provision of
section 25 of the Act, 2000 itself, speaks
that the appointment of teachers and other
employees of institution shall be done in
accordance with the regulations and the
regulations do not come into existence
uptill 2010, then the students cannot be
thrown to suffer, therefore, the only
mechanism of appointment was, by the
Committee of Management.

9. Adding his arguments, he submits
that
in
the
identically
situated
circumstances, the coordinate bench of this
Court in case of Shiva Kant Mishra and
others versus State of U.P. and others in
Writ Petition No. 8253 (SS) of 2007 passed
the judgment and order on 05.05.2009, for
taking decision with respect to payment of
salary
from
the
State
Exchequer,
whereafter, the State Government took
decision and those petitioners are being
paid salary. He next submits that not only
to this, but the ratio of judgment and order
was also followed in the subsequent
judgment in the case of Sushil Kumar
Pandey and 13 others versus State of U.P.
and others in Writ Petition No. 6520 (SS)
of 2013 and the order was passed on
12.11.2013, whereafter, the same was
complied with vide order dated 17.01.2017,
by the State Government and all those
petitioners/employees
are
also
getting
salary from the State Exchequer. Further
submits that the case of the present
petitioners are ditto identical to the case of
those petitioners and therefore, they are
also entitled for the same relief.

10. Concluding his arguments, he
submits that the reasons which are assigned
for non-payment of salary to the petitioners
from State Exchequer is infact shows that
the there is non-application of mind and the
exigency which has arisen, after the
promulgation of the Act, 2000 and uptill
regulation in 2010 came into existence
therefore, submission is that the impugned
order dated 18.12.2019 may be quashed
and the opposite parties may be directed to
make payment of salary to the petitioners
from the State Exchequer.

11. On the other hand, Sri Vivek
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
4 All. Anita Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
455
counsel for the State has refuted the
aforesaid contention of counsel for the
petitioners, vehemently and submitted that
the Act, 2000 is very clear in its terms as
section 25 provides the mechanism with
respect to the appointment of Teaching and
Non-Teaching Staff of such institutions.

12. Submission is that in fact the
regulation came into existence in year 2010
and therefore, any appointment contrary to
the regulation is always against the law and
therefore, such employees are not entitled
for any salary from the State exchequer. He
added that those teaching and non-teaching
employees, appointed by Committee of
Management are liable to be paid from it's
own resources. He submits that the settled
proposition of law is that if, there is
specific provision in the Act with respect to
anything to be done in a particular manner
that is to be done in a particular manner not
otherwise.

13. Further contention is that so far as
the judgment and order passed in the Writ
Petition No. 8253 (SS) of 2007 as well as
the judgment and order passed in Writ No.
6520 (SS) of 2013 are concerned, in both
the orders, it was left open to the State to
take decision and no ratio is drawn thereof,
and therefore, the petitioners could not seek
any benefit of ratio of judgments as abovesaid, thus, submitted that the order dated
18.12.2019 does not suffer from any
illegality and therefore, no interference is
warranted.

14. It is replied in rejoinder by
counsel for the petitioners that in writ
petition no. 8253/SS/2007, the same
objection was also raised and considering
that objection, this Court passed the order
and that is complied with by the State, thus,
the objection is unsustainable.

15. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and after perusal of material
placed on record, it emerges that the
consequence of the bifurcation of the
institution in two sections i.e. one section is
education up to Uttar Madhyamik and the
other up to Acharya and Sastri level and the
Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of the
institution existing prior to its division was
transferred to the section of the institution,
imparting education upto Acharya and
Sastri level and no teachers or employees
were left for working in the school in the
section, imparting the Sankrit Education up
to Uttar Madhyamik level. Under aforesaid
compelling circumstances the appointment
of the petitioner was done to impart the
education.

16. It is undisputed that prior to the
bifurcation, the institution was receiving
grant in aid from the State Government and
the Teaching and Non-Teaching staff
working in the section of institution
imparting
education
upto
Sastri
and
Acharya level is being paid by the State
Government and the counsel for the State
could not substantiate that the payment of
salary of Teachers and Employees of the
institution imparting education upto Uttar
Madhyamik is governed by the payment of
Salaries Act, 1971 and further he has failed
to bring any material on record that any
regulation framed by the Board under the
Act, 2000.

17. Undisputedly, the institution was
established in year 1978 for imparting
education from class VI (Prathama) to post
graduate (Acharya) level and it was
affiliated to Sampurnanand University,
Varanasi and it was receiving in aid, but
once it is bifurcated in between Uttar
Madhyamik and Acharya and Sastri level
vide the Act, 2000, but uptill 2010, no
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regulation was framed and under the
compelling circumstances, the committee
of management for imparting the education
running the institution appointed the
Teachers and it is not in dispute that
Teachers who were appointed are not
imparting education, but they are not
getting their salary from State Exchequer. It
is also a fact that after the bifurcation, the
Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of the
institution which is running the Acharya
and Sastri Level, they are getting salary
from State Exchequer.

18. This Court is also not unmindful
to the judgment and order dated 05.05.2009
passed in Writ Petition No. 8253 (SS)
2007, wherein, it has categorically been
held that those petitioners were appointed
under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 32 of
2000 and the direction was given to the
State to take necessary decision on the
representation wherein, the claim of the
payment of salary was made and as a result,
the representation were decided infavour of
those petitioners and they are getting salary
from State Exchequer.

19. Further, in judgment and order
dated 12.11.2013, passed in Writ Petition
No. 6520 (SS) of 2013 (Sushil Kumar
Pandey and 13 other versus State of U.P.
and others), the benefit granted in the writ
petition no. 8253(SS) of 2007 was also
accorded to the aforesaid petitioners and
the same was also complied with vide the
order dated 17.01.2017 and they are also
getting payment of salary.

20. So far section 25 read with 2(F) of
the U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit
Education, Act 2000 is concerned that
specifically provides the procedure with
respect to the appointment of the Head of
the Institution and Teachers and other
employees
in
accordance
with
the
regulations.

21. The provisions with respect to
framing of the regulation, envisaged under
section 21 and 22 of the 'Act, 2000',
whereby, the Board was empowered to
make
regulations
with
the
previous
approval of the State Government, while
publishing it in the Gazette and the same
could be approved with or without the
modification by the State Government.

22. Section 2(f), 21, 22, 25 and 26 of
the 'Act 2000' are quoted herein under:-

2(f)
"Institution"
means
a
Sanskrit
school
imparting
Sanskrit
education
upto
Uttar
Madhayama
recognized by the Board;

21- (1) The Board may make
regulations for carrying out the purposes of
this Act.

(2) In particular and without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
powers, the Board may make regulations
providing for all or any of the following
matters, namely :-

(a)
constitution, powers
and
duties of committees and sub-committees;

(b) the conferment of diplomas
and certificates;

(c) the conditions of recognition
of intuitions;

(d) the course of study to be laid
down for all certificates and diplomas.

(e) the conditions under which
candidates shall be admitted to the
examinations of the Board and shall be
eligible for diplomas and certificates;

(f) the fees for admission to the
examination of the Board;

(g) the conduct of examinations;

(h) the appointment of examiners,
moderators,
collators,
scrutinisers,
4 All. Anita Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
tabulators,
centre
inspectors,
Superintendents
of
Centers
and
invigilators and their duties and Powers
in relation to the Board's examinations
and the rates of their remuneration;

(i) the admission of institutions
to the privileges of recognition and the
withdrawal of recognition;

(j) all matters which are to be,
or may be, provided for by regulations.

22-
(1)
Regulations
under
section 21 shall be made only with the
previous
approval
of
the
State
Government and shall be published in the
Gazette.

(2) The State Government may
approve any such regulation proposed by
the Board with or without modification.

25- Subject to the provision of
this Act, the Head of institution and
teachers and other employees of an
institution
shall
be
appointed
in
accordance with the regulations.

26- (1) Every person employed
in an institution shall be governed by
such conditions of service as may be
prescribed
by
regulations
and
any
agreement between the Management and
such employees in so for as it is
inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act or with the regulations, shall be void.

(2) Without prejudice to the
generality of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) the regulations may
provide for, -

(a) the code of conduct, the
period of probation, the conditions of
confirmation and the procedure and the
procedure and conditions for promotion
and punishment including suspension
pending or in contemplation of inquiry or
during the pendency of investigation,
inquiry or trial in any criminal case for
an offence involving moral turpitude and
the
emoluments
for
the
period
of
suspension and termination of service with
notice;

(b) the scales of pay and
payment of salaries;

(c) transfer of service from one
recognized institution to another;

(d) grant of leave and provident
fund and other benefits; and

(e) maintenance of record of
work and service.

(3) (a) No Head of institution or
teacher may be discharged or removed or
dismissed from service or reduced in rank
or subjected to any diminution in
emoluments, or served with notice of
termination of service except with the
prior approval in writing of the Regional
Joint Director.

(b) Regional Joint Director may
approve or disapprove or reduce or
chance the punishment or approve or
disapprove of the notice for termination
of service proposed by the Management;

Provided that in the cases of
punishment, before passing order, the
Regional Joint Director shall give, an
opportunity to the Head of institution or
the teacher to show cause within a
fortnight of the receipt of the notice why
the proposed punishment should not be
inflicted.

(c) Any party may prefer an
appeal to the Director against an order
of the Regional Joint Director under
clause (b) within one month from the date
of communication of the order to that
party and the Director may, after such
further
enquiry
as
he
considers
necessary, confirm, set-aside or modify
the order and the order passed by the
Director shall be final.

(4) No Head of institution or
teacher
shall
be
suspended
by
the
Management, unless in the opinion of the
Management, -
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(a) the charges against him are
serious enough to merit his dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank; or

(b) his continuance in office is
likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of
disciplinary proceedings against him; or

(c) any criminal case for an
offence involving moral turpitude against him
is under investigation, enquiry or trial.

(5) Where any Head of institution
or teacher is suspended by the Committee of
Management it shall be reported to the
Regional Joint Director within seven days
from the date of order of suspension and the
report shall contain such particulars as may
be
prescribed
by
regulations
and
accompanied by all relevant documents.

(6) No such order of suspension
shall, unless approved in writing by the
Regional Joint Director, remain in force, for
more than sixty days from the date of such
order and the order of the Regional Joint
Director shall be final and shall not be
questioned in any court.

(7) If at any time the Regional Joint
Director
is
satisfied
that
disciplinary
proceedings against the Head of institution
or teacher are being delayed for no fault of
the Head of institution or the teacher, the
Regional Joint Director may after affording
opportunity to the Management to make
representation,
revoke
any
order
of
suspension passed under this section."

23. Bare reading of the provisions,
indicates that a mechanism was proposed to
be developed for appointment of teaching and
non-teaching staff of such institution by way
of framing regulations, but about ten years
nothing was done and therefore, looking into
the exigency of imparting education to the
students, the appointments are done.

24. I have also noticed that the
opposite parties have failed to establish that
the present matter is not identical to the
petitioners
of
the
writ
petition
no.
8253/SS/2007
and
writ
petition
no.
6250/SS/2013.

25. This Court is also aware about the
order passed in Special Appeal No. 122 of
2010, wherein, the Division Bench of this
Court has also directed that the petitioners
of Writ Petition No. 8253/SS/2007, shall be
paid salary as per the order passed by the
Learned Single Judge.

26. The order passed in Special
Appeal No. 122 of 2010 and Special
Appeal No. 80 of 2010, is quoted
hereinunder:-

Order (Oral)

Application with
affidavit
of
apology filed in Court is taken on record.

Learned counsel for respondents
prays for and is granted a week's time to
file reply to the application.

Operation of further proceedings
towards the charge drawn for committing
contempt of this Court shall remain
deferred till the next date of hearing.

These
two
Special
Appeals
namely Special Appeal No.84 of 2010 and
Special Appeal No.122 of 2010 arise out of
judginents and orders passed by learned
Single Judges in Writ Petition No.8253 (SS)
of 2007 (dated 5.5.2009) and Contempt
Petition
No.2111
of
2009
(dated
16.03.2010) respectively. The main reason
that has given rise to these litigations
seems to be the operative portion of the
order passed by learned Single Judge in the
Writ Petition. Last two paragraphs of the
said judgment, on reproduction, would
read as:

"...........It is not in dispute that
the Section of the Institution imparting
education upto Shastri and Acharya level is
4 All. Anita Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
receiving grant-in-aid from the State
Government and the salaries, of the
teaching and non-teaching staff of that
Section of the Institution is being paid by
the
Sate
Government.
The
State
Government by its Office Memorandum
dated 20.02.2004 had granted permission
to the Management of the Institution to
run classes upto Acharya and Shastri level
and Uttar Madhyama level subject to the
conditions mentioned in the said Office
Memorandum and Management of the
Institution
having
fulfilled
all
the
conditions
mentioned
in
the
Office
Memorandum dated 20.02.2004, the State
Government is bound to make payment of
the petitioners' salary. The submission
made by the learned counsel for the
opposite parties that the State Government
is not liable to pay the petitioners' salary
for the reason that the posts against which
the petitioners have been appointed have
not been sanctioned by the opposite party
No.5
is
totally
misconceived
and
unacceptable. The petitioners have been
appointed under the provisions of U.P. Act
No.32 of 2000, which is self contained Act
and there is nothing in the Act which may
indicate that the provisions of Payment of
Salary Act, 1971 shall apply to the
persons appointed as Assistant Teachers
in the Institution imparting education upto
Uttar Madhyama for the purpose of
payment of their salary. Since the State
Government is paying salary of the
teachers and the non-teaching employees
working in the section of the Institution in
which education upto Acharya and Shastri
level
is
being
imparted,
the
State
Government, in my opinion, cannot deny
its liability to make payment of the
petitioners' salary w.e.f. the date of their
appointments.

In the result, the writ petition is
finally disposed of with a direction to the
opposite parties No.1 to 5 to take necessary
decision on the representations dated
23.10.2007 submitted by the Manager of
Srimat
Param
Hans
Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya
Tikarmafi,
Sultanpur
(Annexures No.4 to 8 to the writ petition)
and on the petitioners' claim for payment of
their salary from the date of their
respective appointments in the Institution in
the
light
of
the
observations
made
hereinabove and in accordance with law
within a period of two months from the date
of production of certified copy of this
order."

As the learned Single Judge
rejected the arguments of learned counsel
for State and concluded by expressing
opinion
inter
alia
that
the
State
Government cannot deny its liability to
make payment of petitioners' salary from
the date of their appointments, then
perhaps there was no reason to direct the
State to consider the representation.

The earlier Secretary, Secondary
Education, Sri Jitendra Kumar while
deciding the representation proceeded in
the ignorance of the above findings which
though
the
Court
has
referred
as
observations are in the nature of mandate
of the judgment.

Thus, we hold that irrespective of
rejection of representation submitted by the
Manager
dated
23.10.2007
by
the
Secretary, the teachers and non teaching
staff as directed vide the impugned
judgment, would be entitled to get their
salary. Nonetheless we cannot ignore the
apathy of the State as well as the Union of
India towards the institutions which are
imparting education in Sanskrit, It appears
that the State as well as the Central
Government has forgotten the theme and
mandate as contained in Article 351 of the
Constitution.
The
said
Article
on
reproduction would read as:
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"351.
Directive
for
development of the Hindi language.- It
shall be the duty of the Union to promote
the spread of the Hindi language, to
develop it so that it may serve as a
medium of expression for all the elements
of the composite culture of India and to
secure its enrichment by assimilating
without interfering with its genius, the
forms, style and expressions used in
Hindustani and in the other languages of
India specified in the Eighth Schedule,
and by drawing, wherever necessary or
desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily
on Sanskrit and secondarily on other
languages"

Accordingly, we issue notice to
the
Secretary,
Human
Resources,
Government of India, to file reply as to
why the Central Government has not
made provision for grant in aid or some
similar type of financial help to such
institutions in the light of mandate of the
Article as aforesaid.

Let the reply be filed by the
Central Government as well as the State
through their Secretaries before the next
date of hearing.

Issuance
of
this
notice
is
necessitated in the light of grouse that for
the past many years after bifurcation of
this institution, it has not been provided
sufficient number of teachers and non
teaching staff in the absence of grant in
aid.

List on 05.03.2013.

27. Referring the aforesaid, he
submits that the Hon'ble Division Bench
has held that irrespective of rejection of
representation submitted by the Manager,
the teacher and non-teaching staff would
be entitled to get their salary and it has
also been observed that 'nonetheless we
cannot ignore the apathy of the State as
well as Union of India towards the
institution which are imparting education
in Sanskrit.'

28. It is noteworthy that the
petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions
are getting salary from the StateExchequer as the State has taken decision
positively on the claim raised by those
petitioners. The case of the present
petitioners are ditto identical to those
petitioners of writ petition no. 8253 of
2007 and thus, the present petitioners are
entitled for same relief.

29. In view of the above-said
submissions and discussions, the Writ
Petition is hereby allowed.

30. The State Government i.e.
opposite party no. 1 is hereby directed to
consider and decide the claim of the
petitioners regarding their payment of
salary, in light of the judgment and orders
dated 05.05.2009 passed in Writ Petition
No. 8253 (SS) 2007 (Shiva Kant Mishra
and others versus State of U.P. and
others) and order dated 12.11.2013
passed in Writ Petition No. 6520 (SS) of
2013 (Sushil Kumar Pandey and 13
others versus State of U.P. and others)
and the benefit of the said judgments
shall also be extended to the present
petitioners, within a period of eight
weeks, from the date of certified copy of
this order produced before it.

31. Needless to say that identical
question is subjudice in Special Appeal
No. 122 of 2010 connected with Special
Appeal No. 80 of 2010 and therefore, the
decision taken by the State Government
shall be subject matter of final outcome
of the special appeals.
----------
4 All. Rahul Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
(2024) 4 ILRA 461
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 16977 of 2023

Rahul Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prabhat Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhay Srivastava, Sri Abhay
Singh Tomar, Sri Adarsh Bhushan

A. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Censure - Withholding of
two increments with cumulative effect -
Charge of slackness of control over
subordinates and failure in taking firm
disciplinary action against the employees,
who
used
unparliamentary
language
against one another and indulging in
partaking liquor in the office - No
witnesses were produced on behalf of the
Corporation to prove the charges against
the petitioner - Effect - Held, nonadherence
to
the
salutary
principles
governing the conduct of a departmental
inquiry in matters involving the imposition
of
a
major
penalty
may
not
have
prejudiced the petitioner - A finding about
any of the charges could not have been
validly
recorded
by
the
Inquiry
Committee, without the Establishment
producing evidence, including witnesses.
(Para 6, 9, 14, 15, 16 and 17)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P.& ors. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha;
(2010) 2 SCC 772
2. Roop Singh Negi Vs P.N.B.& ors.; (2009) 2
SCC 570

3. St. of Uttaranchal & ors. Vs Kharak Singh;
(2008) 8 SCC 236

4. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Kishori Lal & anr.; 2018
(9) ADJ 397 (DB)(LB)

5. Smt. Karuna Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P.; 2018 (9)
ADJ 107 (DB)(LB)

6. St. of U.P. Vs Aditya Prasad Srivastava &
anr.; 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB)(LB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This writ petition is directed against an
order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the
Chairman,
Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Corporation Limited, Lucknow1, punishing
the petitioner, an Executive Engineer, with
a
censure
and
withholding
of
two
increments with cumulative effect. Also
under challenge is an appellate order dated
26.07.2023 passed by the Board of
Directors of the Corporation, rejecting the
petitioner's departmental appeal against the
punishment awarded by the Chairman of
the Corporation.

2. The succinct facts giving rise to
this petition are that the petitioner was
selected by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity
Service Commission and appointed a SubDivisional Officer on 23.05.2012 in the
employ of the Corporation. The petitioner
was promoted to the post of an Executive
Engineer in due course. He is currently
posted in the District of Varanasi. The
petitioner was earlier posted at Prayagraj
during the years 2020-21. At the time he
was posted at Prayagraj, an order dated
24.07.2021 was issued by the Managing
Director of the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, Varanasi2, directing the
petitioner, who then held charge as the