# C/M Bal Vidyalaya v. District Social Welfare Officer, Allahabad and another

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 188
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-bal-vidyalaya-v-district-social-welfare-officer-allahabad-and-another-39237
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

188
9.10.1987. As such it was not essential
for the punishing authority to give details
of the enquiry report I n the punishment
order. The punishing authority has
applied his mind and had taken into
consideration the replies of the petitioner
while passing punishment order which is
clear from the perusal of punishment
order
dated
17.5.1988
(Annexure1).
There is no illegality in the punishment
order."

6. In view of the above finding of
the
Tribunal,
which
has
not
been
demonstrated to be erroneous in any
manner, in the opinion of the Court, the
impugned order and judgment is not liable
to be interfered with.

7. The learned counsel of the
petitioner also submits that this Court may
intervene in as much as the punishment
awarded
to
the
petitioner
is
not
commensurate to his guilt. It cannot be
gainsaid that the question of quantum of
punishment has to be decided by the
punishing authority; and that this Court in
exercise of its extra-ordinary discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India should not interfere
with the impugned order on the ground of
adequacy
or
inadequacy
of
the
punishment. (See. State Bank of India &
others Versus Samarendra Kishore Endow
& another, reported in Judgements Today
1994 (1) S.C. at page 217; and U.P. State
Road Transport Corpn. & others Versus
A.K. Parul, reported in Judgments Today
1998 (8) S.C.. at page 404)

8. All told, the petition lacks
substance. It is dismissed summarily.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0& -$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 0& -$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

&RPPLWWHH
RI
0DQDJHPHQW
%DO
9LG\DOD\D
1D\D
3XUD
6WDQOH\ 5RDG
$OODKDEDG 7KURXJK LWV 0DQDJHU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW 6RFLDO :HOIDUH 2IILFHU $OODKDEDG
 DQRWKHU
5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 6& .XVKZDKD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL $.*R\DO
6KUL $QLO -DLVZDO

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH
31R
ZRUN QR SD\ ́ LV QRW DSSOLFDEOH LQ WKRVH
FDVHV ZKHUH WKHUH LV QR IXDOW RQ WKH SDUW
RI WKH FRQFHUQHG WHFKHU
+HOG ±
7KXV WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV ZHUH FUHDWHG
E\ WKH SHWLWLRQHU DV UHVXOW RI ZKLFK VKH
FRXOG
QRW
ZRUN
GXULQJ
WKH
SHULRG
 WR 6KH FDQQRW EH
GHSULYHG RI WKH VDODU\ IRU WKH VDLG SHULRG
RQ
WKH
SULQFLSOH
3QR
ZRUN
QR
SD\ ́
EHFDXVH
RI
VXFK
D
VLWXDWLRQ
LOOHJDOO\
FUHDWHG
E\
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
DQG
WKH
UHVSRQGHQW QR LV QRW WR EH EODPHG
WKHUHIRU
7KH DWWHPSW RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU WR GHSULYH
KHU RI WKH VDPH DQG ILOLQJ RI WKLV ZULW
SHWLWLRQ
WR
DFKLHYH
WKLV
SXUSRVH
LV
PDODILGH XQWHQDEOH DQG XQIRXQGHG
 3DUD
3All] C/M Bal Vidyalaya V. District Social Welfare Officer, Allahabad and another 189

By the Court

1. The petitioner has sought the
quashing of order dated 29.1.1998 passed
by respondent no.1 which is Annexure 1
to the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is the Management
Committee of Bal Vidyalaya, Naya Pura
(Stanley Road), Allahabad. Respondent
no.1 is the District Social Welfare Officer,
Allahabad and respondent no.2 Smt.
Krishna Srivastava was a teacher in the
School managed by the petitioner. The
petitioner runs two primary schools, one
at Naya Pura, Allahabad and the other
known as Kanya Pathshala, Ramman Ka
Pura, Allahabad. The Manager of both the
schools is one and the same, namely, Shri
Rishi Ram. The schools receive grant-inaid
from
the
Government
through
respondent no.1. By order dated 11.12.96,
respondent no.2 had been transferred by
the petitioner from Naya Pura to Kanya
Pathshala, Ramman Ka Pura, Allahabad.
She challenged her transfer by means of
Writ petition no.41225 of 1996 which was
finally disposed of on 19.12.1996 with a
direction that the petitioner would make
representation to respondent no.1 who
shall dispose of the same within two
weeks. When se represented to respondent
no.1, the latter directed the petitioner on
16.1.1997 to decide the matter at its own
level. The petitioner then rejected the
representation of respondent no.2 and
directed her to join at the transferred
institution but she did not comply with the
same. She made an application in writ
petition no.41225 of 1996 for recall of the
order dated 19.12.1996 and with the
prayer that the petition be decided on
merits . A contempt petition was also
made by her. It was directed by the Court
on 19.8.1997 that it was open to her to
represent
before
the
Committee
of
Management
and
on
her
such
representation,
the
committee
would
decide the matter within three weeks
from the date of production of a certified
copy of the order, but she did not file any
representation before the Committee of
Management. Because of this order,
respondent no.1 was under pressure to
pass an order dated 15.7.1997, Annexure
9 to the writ petition, cancelling the
transfer order of respondent no.2 and
directing the petitioner to permit her to
join at her post. Thereafter, respondent
no.1 passed the complained order dated
29.1.1998 directing the petitioner to pay
the salary of respondent no.2 for the
period 15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997 within ten
days. Admittedly, she was permitted to
join on 23.7.1997. The contention of
petitioner is that respondent no.2 did not
work for the period 15.12.1996 to
22.7.1997 and as such she was not
entitled to salary for this period on the
principle of "no work no pay", The also
did not apply for any leave for this period.

3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exchanged between the parties.
The case of respondent no.2 is that her
transfer order was wholly illegal. She was
not permitted to work during the period
15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997 and had been
unnecessary harassed by the petitioner.
The impugned order dated 29.1.1998
passed by respondent no.1 was only a
consequential order of the earlier order
dated 15.7.1997 (Annexure 9 to the writ
petition) passed by respondent no.1
whereby
the
transfer
order
dated
11.12.1996
passed
in
respect
of
respondent no.2 was cancelled as it was
against the Government order.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

190
4. I have heard Sri S.C. Kushwaha
for
the
petitioner,
learned
Standing
Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri A.K.
Goyal for respondent no. 2.

5.

Admittedly,
the
petitioner
receives
grant-in-aid
from
the
Government through respondent no. 1. It
is apparent that the transfer of respondent
no. 2 from one institution to the other by
the petitioner by order dated 11.12.196
was illegal and it was for this reason that
it came to be cancelled by respondent no.
1. She was permitted to join her duty
only on 23.7.1997. Her representation
made to respondent no. 1 earlier and
referred to the petitioner was rejected by
it (petitioner). Thus, the circumstances
were created by the petitioner, as a result
of which she could not work during the
period 15.12.196 to 22.7.1997. She
cannot be deprived of the salary for the
said period on the principle 'no work no
pay' because of such a situation illegally
created
by
the
petitioner
and
the
respondent no. 2 is not to be blamed
therefor. She had all through been
running from pillar to post and had even
filed the writ petition also to challenge the
illegal Act of the petitioner. It came to be
revealed by the parties during the course
of the arguments that by now she has
retired. Anyway, she is entitled to receive
her salary and allowance for the period
15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997. The attempt of
the petitioner to deprive her of the same
and filing of this writ petition to achieve
this purpose is malafide, untenable and
unfounded. In all fairness, the petitioner
should pay the salary of respondent no. 2
for the period 15.12.196 to 22..1997. The
petitioner shall be directed to make
payment of the salary of respondent no. 2
for the period 15.12.1996 to 22.7.1997
within one month from today.
6. In the result, the writ petition is
hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner
is directed to make payment of the salary
of the respondent no. 2 for the period
15.12.196 to 22.7.1997 within one month
from today. There would be no order as
to costs.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 7+
7+ $8*867
$8*867
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

([HFXWLYH (QJLQHHU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 3UHVLGLQJ 2IILFHU DQG
DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
0U 5DQMLW 6D[HQD
&RXQVHOV IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
0U 6KDVKL 1DQGDQ 6&

83
,QGXVWULDO
GLVSXWH
$FW
5
 ± (; ± 3DUWH $ZDUG ± DSSOLFDWLRQ
WR VHWD VLGH )LOHG DIWHU 0RQWKVULJKWO\
UHMHFWHG RUGHU UHIXVLQJ WR VHWDVLGH WKH
H[
SDUWH
DZDUG
ZDUUDQWV
QR
LQWHUIHUHQFH
+HOG
7KH DZDUG GDWHG SXEOLVKHG
RQ
 KDV EHFRPH ILQDO ,WV YDOLGLW\
FDQQRW EH FKDOOHQJHG RQ DQ\ JURXQG
ZKDWVRHYHU 7KH UHVSRQGHQW , FDQQRW EH
VDLG WR KDYH PLVGLUHFWHG
LWVHOI WR DQ\
IDFWRU
UHOHYDQW
WR
H[HUFLVH
RI
LWV
GLVFUHWLRQ LQ WKH PDWWHU LQ UHMHFWLQJ WKH
DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU VHWWLQJ DVLGH WKH DZDUG
DQG
FRQVHTXHQWO\
WKH
RUGHU
GDWHG
 UHIXVLQJ WR VHW DVLGH WKH H[ ±
SDUWH DZDUG
ZDUUDQWV
QR LQIHUHQFH