# Chandra Prakash Agrawal v. Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others - **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 576 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-04-07 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15202 of 2004 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-prakash-agrawal-v-urban-cooperative-bank-ltd-and-others-41923 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India Article 226Alternative Remedy-in default in payment of instalments-recovery proceeding initiated as per award given by arbitrator under Rule 229-(1)(c) of U.P. Cooperative Societies rules 1968-appellable under Section 98 (h) of the Act-petition can not ## Text 576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 25. Accordingly , this writ petition succeeds and is allowed in the light of directions as given above. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15202 of 2004 Shri Balji Tewari ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Rahul Chaturvedi Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976Section 2(b)-Public Servant-Asst. Teacher in recognized Private School-even getting salary from Public exchor is not Public Servant-as the appointing and controlling authority is the management-Civil Suits for arrears of salary-dismissed as not maintainable-held-Trail as well as Revisional Court misdirected-order quashed matter remitted back for decision on merit subject to other objection if any. Held: Para 5 It talks of a public servant in the service or pay of the State Government. The salary paid to a teacher of an aided institution is actually salary paid by the College itself pursuant to the aid received from State Government. By virtue of the provision of Payment of Salary Act, the responsibility to ensure salary to teaching staff is on the Government for which tuition fee to the extent provided in the Act is deposited by the College in the State Exchequer. The employer of the teacher is Committee of Management of the School and salary is paid to the teacher by the College and not by Government. The revisional Court has completely misdirected itself in holding the petitioner a 'public servant'. Therefore the impugned order cannot sustain. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. ) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The order impugned in this writ petition is passed by the Addl. District Judge, Mathura holding that petitioner suit No.292 of 1990 is not maintainable in view of Section 6 of U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1976")on the ground that the petitioner is a teacher in an aided private school but since the liability for payment of salary lie upon State Government, therefore, is a holder of a civil post and is a "public servant" as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act therefore the suit is not maintainable. 3. It is contended that the logic and reasoning assigned by revisional court is wholly misconceived and is contrary to law. 4. In my view, the submission is well founded and the impugned order cannot be sustained. The term "public servant" as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act, reads as under: 'Public servant' means every person in the service or pay of- (i) the State Government; or (ii) a local authority not being a Cantonment Board; or 2 All] Chandra Prakash Agrawal V. Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others 577 (iii) any other corporation owned or controlled by the State Government (including any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fifty per cent of paid up share capital is held by the State Government) but does not include- (1) a person in the pay or service of any other company ; or (2) a member of the All India Services or other Central Services." 5. It talks of a public servant in the service or pay of the State Government. The salary paid to a teacher of an aided institution is actually salary paid by the College itself pursuant to the aid received from State Government. By virtue of the provision of Payment of Salary Act, the responsibility to ensure salary to teaching staff is on the Government for which tuition fee to the extent provided in the Act is deposited by the College in the State Exchequer. The employer of the teacher is Committee of Management of the School and salary is paid to the teacher by the College and not by Government. The revisional Court has completely misdirected itself in holding the petitioner a 'public servant'. Therefore the impugned order cannot sustain. 6. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15th November, 2003 passed by Addl. District Judge, Mathura (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) is set set aside. 7. However since the suit was filed in 1995, it needs be decided expeditiously. I order accordingly. 8. At this stage learned Standing Counsel stated that in the matter of educational institutions, even otherwise a civil suit is barred by the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and other relevant statutes. Since this aspect of the matter has not been considered and decided by the Court below, this Court is not expressing any opinion on the issue and leave it open to the trial Court to consider the maintainability of the suit in the light of the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and such other provision, as may be referred to by the parties concerned before it. This judgment shall not be construed to expressing any opinion on this aspect of the matter. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA,J. THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16311 of 2011 Chandra Prakash Agrawal ...Petitioner Versus Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Pradeep Saxena Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. Constitution of India Article 226Alternative Remedy-in default in payment of instalments-recovery proceeding initiated as per award given by arbitrator under Rule 229-(1)(c) of U.P. Cooperative Societies rules 1968-appellable under Section 98 (h) of the Act-petition can not