# Anurag Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 726
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-25
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 31660 of 2019
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anurag-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45514
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - The petitioner had joined on
the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts) on
11.10.1999 and worked untill 21.11.2000. He
was then forced not to attend the institution for
the period since 22.11.2000 to 20.11.2001. The
decision for inclusion of institution in the Grantin-Aid list is not in pursuance of the documents
submitted
in
the
year
2000-2001.
After
rectifying the shortcomings in the documents,
the institution was included in the Grant-in-Aid
list in the year 2004 and the name of the
petitioner was there in the list. He was
appointed against a sanctioned post which felt
vacant one on the demise of the Principal and
another on retirement of the incumbent teacher,
which is the basis upon which the college has
been included in the Grant-in-Aid list. In this
background the reason assigned by DIOS for
dropping the name of the petitioner is wholly
untenable. (Para 9)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-10)

## Text

726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rules of 1974, particularly, Rule 7, which
applies to a case of rival claimants.

12. It must be placed on record that
before this Court, a counter affidavit, filed
on behalf of the fifth respondent, is an
affidavit of the deceased's widow. She has
said on oath that the petitioner is a man
with criminal antecedents. She has annexed
on record, a copy of an F.I.R. registered
against the petitioner. She has also annexed
on record, a copy of the ration card, from a
time when the deceased was head of the
family. That ration card does not show the
petitioner's name, whereas, it clearly shows
the fifth respondent's name. The widow
appears to be disillusioned with the
petitioner. She has called him a hardened
criminal, in the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent no. 5.

13. This Court does not, at all, intend
to say that the petitioner is, in fact, a
hardened criminal. The petitioner may be a
rascal, a saint, or a man in the mainstream
of society. What is relevant is that the
deceased's widow, the petitioner's mother,
does not trust him to take care of the
family. It is this fact that is relevant under
Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974. The
Superintending Engineer, who has passed
the impugned order, has, in the opinion of
this Court, rightly exercised his powers
under the Rules of 1974 to accept the fifth
respondent's claim and reject that of the
petitioner.

14. In the result, this petition fails and
is dismissed.

15. Costs easy.
----------
(2020)12ILR A726
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.11.2020
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 31660 of 2019

Anurag Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashwani Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rajendra Singh Kushwaha

A. Service Law - The petitioner had joined on
the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts) on
11.10.1999 and worked untill 21.11.2000. He
was then forced not to attend the institution for
the period since 22.11.2000 to 20.11.2001. The
decision for inclusion of institution in the Grantin-Aid list is not in pursuance of the documents
submitted
in
the
year
2000-2001.
After
rectifying the shortcomings in the documents,
the institution was included in the Grant-in-Aid
list in the year 2004 and the name of the
petitioner was there in the list. He was
appointed against a sanctioned post which felt
vacant one on the demise of the Principal and
another on retirement of the incumbent teacher,
which is the basis upon which the college has
been included in the Grant-in-Aid list. In this
background the reason assigned by DIOS for
dropping the name of the petitioner is wholly
untenable. (Para 9)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned State Counsel for
Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri
Rajendra Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel
for Opposite Party No.4.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred for quashing of the impugned
order dated 6.9.2019 passed by Opposite
12 All. Anurag Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
727
Party No.3 i.e. District Inspector of
Schools, Lakhimpur Kheri, by which
rejected the claim of the petitioner for
including in the list of teachers getting
salary from the State exchequer after the
institution being included in the list of
Grant-in-Aid
and
further
prayed
for
directing the Opposite Parties to consider,
grant and pay to the petitioner all the
benefits admissible to the post of Assistant
Teacher (Arts) held by the petitioner w.e.f.
01.01.2004.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that Opposite party No.5 was
an unaided and recognized institution at the
time of appointment of the petitioner in the
year 1999 on the post of Assistant Teacher
(Arts). The petitioner in pursuance of the
appointment letter dated 10.10.1999 had
joined the institution on 11.10.1999 and
worked up-till 21.11.2000.

4. The then Manager of the Institution
was not happy with the petitioner and
restrained him from coming to the
institution and the matter was resolved only
after intervention of the DIOS and
whereafter, the petitioner was permitted to
attend the institution from 14.07.2001 and
since then the petitioner is regularly
working in the institution till date.

5. It is further submitted that the claim
of the petitioner for payment of salary from
the state exchequer under the Payment of
Salaries Act after the institution being
included in the Grant-in-Aid list vide order
dated 1st January, 2004 was rejected on the
ground that when the list of teaching and
non-teaching
staff
forwarded
by
the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution in the year 2000-2001, the name
of the petitioner was not there and, hence
the petitioner is not entitled for the salary.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that the list of
teaching and non-teaching staff forwarded
by the Committee of Management in the
year 2000-2001 was not accepted by the
authorities and returned the list to remove
the shortcoming. In pursuance of the
direction of the State Government, the
Director wrote a letter dated 25.09.2004
addressed to the DIOS to complete the
information. The Management of the
institution, thereafter, submitted a list in
which the name of the petitioner was
mentioned removing the deficiencies as
asked
by
the
authorities.
After
the
submission of the same, the institution has
been included in the list of Grant-in-Aid
w.e.f. 01.01.2004 but the petitioner was not
included.

7. On the other hand, learned State
Counsel has submitted that when the list of
teaching and non-teaching staff was forwarded
by the Committee of Management in the year
2000-2001, the name of the petitioner was not
there as the petitioner was not working in the
institution at that time, but failed to dispute this
fact when the matter was remanded back by
the State Government and the documents were
again submitted by the Committee of
Management including the list of teaching and
non-teaching staff, the name of petitioner was
there. It is further submitted that the petitioner
mislead the authority by giving an undertaking
on 14.07.2001 on an affidavit for not claiming
any benefits for the period from 22.11.2000 to
14.07.2001 and joined the post on 21.07.2001.
The Manager also specifically made a
declaration that in case the petitioner is not
included in the list of the staff of the institution
then the Management shall bear his salary
from its own resources.

8. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, it is found that the opposite
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
parties did not dispute the appointment of
the petitioner since the year 1999.

9. Be that as it may, the decision for
inclusion of institution in the Grant-in-Aid
list is not in pursuance of the documents
submitted in the year 2000-2001. The State
Government after receiving the proposal
from the Director had returned the
documents pointing out the deficiency and
the same had been rectified and fresh
documents
were
submitted
by
the
Committee
of
Management
for
the
purposes of inclusion of the institution in
the Grant-in-Aid list in the year 2004 and
the name of the petitioner was also there.
After the submission of the documents in
the year 2004 the institution has been
included in the list of Grant-in-Aid. The
petitioner was forced not to attend the
institution for the period since 22.11.2000
to 20.11.2001 and after intervention of the
D.I.O.S. the petitioner was allowed to join
the institution on 21.07.2001. This fact of
the petitioner having worked or not during
the period 02.11.2000 to 20.11.2001 has no
bearing on the merit of the case in hand.
There is no claim made in this writ petition
for salary of the teacher for aforesaid
period. Undisputedly, the name of the
petitioner finds mentioned in the affidavit
of the manager filed in the year 2004,
having been appointed against a sanctioned
posts which felt vacant one on the demise
of the Principal and another on retirement
of the incumbent teacher, which is the basis
upon which the college has been included
in the Grant-in-Aid-list. In this background
the reason assigned by DIOS in excluding
the name of the teacher are wholly
untenable and extraneous for the purpose of
dropping the name of the petitioner.

10. It may be observed that the DIOS
could drop the name of the teacher only if
had found that in the year 2004 the teacher
was not duly and legally appointed teacher
in the institution. The DIOS could perhaps
rely on this ground of rejection in case the
salary was being required to be paid since
2001, but the order is effective from
01.01.2004, therefore, the reason that the
name of petitioner not in the list of 20002001, which was never acted upon cannot
held to be a valid reason for passing the
impugned order.

11. The only other reason that the
Manager had given some undertaking to
bear the burden of the salary of the teacher
in case of non-inclusion the name of
teacher in the approved list of 2004 is equally
irrelevant and not legally acceptable. This
condition volunteered by the Manager in
respect of Salary will not deprive the teacher
of his salary from the State exchequer. The
dropping of the name of the teacher from the
list of 2004 being illegal and without any valid
ground. The liability of payment of salary of
teacher is squarely lay on the State
Government which could not be compromised
or negotiated by any authority namely the
Manager in this case depriving the teacher of
his legal right under the law.

12. For the reasons indicated
hereinabove, the impugned order dated
6.9.2019 is, hereby, quashed. The DIOS is
directed to pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law for payment of arrears
of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2004
and regular salary every month for the post
of Assistant Teacher (Arts) as it has been
given to the other teachers whose names
were forwarded by the Committee of
Management alongwith name of the
petitioner in the year 2004 adjusting the
amount of any payment if made to the
teacher by the Management and the said
exercise shall be completed and payment
12 All. Shri Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
729
made within 3 months from the date of
downloaded copy of the order from the
official website is served.

13. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2020)12ILR A729
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2020

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 60602 of 2016

Shri Ram Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Awadh Behari Singh, Sri Manish Singh,
Sri Rajesh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
CS.C.

A. Service Law - The U.P. Collection Amin
Service Rules, 1974 - U.P. Regularization
of Ad-hoc (On posts outside the purview
of Public Service Commission) Rules,
1979-Regularization and Appointment

The petitioner's claim to regularization was
rejected under the Rules of 1974 as amended
by the 7th Amendment of 2015, on the ground
that 35% quota prescribed under the Rules for
Seasonal Collection Amins was already full by
25.7.2016. So far as the regularization under
the U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc (On posts
outside
the
purview
of
Public
Service
Commission) Rules, 1979 (for short "Rules of
1979"), as amended by the 3rd Amendment
Rules, 2001, the petitioner was not eligible,
because he was not an Ad-hoc Amin, but
appointed in a Stop Gap arrangement, without
being selected through any process prescribed
by the Rules of 1974. (Para 7)

The Court, finds that the petitioner had been
permitted to continue, at one point of time,
under the umbrella of a judicial order, but not
for the whole of his service. He was permitted
by the respondents to continue in service,
against a sanctioned post, drawing regular
salary after 21.4.2004, without an interim order,
protecting his interest by permitting him to
continue in service. The petitioner retired on
attaining the age of superannuation, and in the
process, has rendered 28 years of service on the
post of Collection Amin. (Para 11)

B.
Difference
between
a
Stop
Gap
arrangement and Ad-hoc arrangement - A
Stop Gap arrangement, by its nature, is
something pro tem. It is not an arrangement
which can continue or ought to continue over a
period as long as 14 years. It cannot, therefore,
be gainsaid that the petitioner was not an adhoc employee, but a man, who filled in Stop
Gap. Ad-hoc means a kind of arrangement that
is not in accordance with the Rules, particularly
in the context of service jurisprudence. No
doubt, the petitioner was not selected in
accordance with the Rules, but he was allowed
to continue for a total period of 23 years, of
which, 14 were without the protection of a
judicial order, interim or final. This kind of
arrangement certainly qualifies as an ad-hoc
arrangement; an ad-hoc appointment. (Para 11)

C.
U.P.
Collection
Amin
(Service)
7th
Amendment Rules, 2015 - The petitioner retired
from service on 31.7.2018. The 7th Amendment
Rules, which provided for a quota of 85% came into
force on 1.10.2015, whereas the impugned order
was passed on 8.10.2016. Thus, at the time when
the District Magistrate made the impugned order,
the petitioner's claim as a Seasonal Collection
Amin was to be reckoned on the basis of a
quota of 85%, and not 35%. The District
Magistrate held that the available vacancy relative to
the prescribed quota of 35% was full by 25.7.2016.
The impugned order, therefore, proceeds on a
reckoning of quota reserved for Seasonal Collection
Amins far short of the prescribed 85%. (Para 14)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent mentioned: