# Committee of Management v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 222
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39603
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
222
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21
%/( $. <2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

&RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW «3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL $0 7ULSDWKL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL 85 3DQGH\
6&.

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

3D\PHQW RI VDODU\ WR WKH WHDFKLQJ DQG
QRQ WHDFKLQJ VWDII LQVWLWXWLRQ XSJUDGHG
IURP -XQLRU +LJK 6FKRRO ZHI 0DUFK
 WKH *RYHUQPHQW UHIXVHG WR SD\
WKH
VDODU\
VWDWH
FDQQRW
VKULQN
LWV
UHVSRQVLELOLW\
WR
HQVXUH
WKH
SURSHU
HGXFDWLRQ
GLUHFWLRQ
LVVXHG
WR
JLYH
PRQWK E\ PRQWK VDODU\ WR WKH YDOLGO\
DSSRLQWHG WHDFKLQJ DQG QRQ WHDFKLQJ
VWDII LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH SURYLVLRQV RI
83 -XQLRU +LJK 6FKRRO 3D\PHQW RI
VDODULHV
RI
WKH
WHDFKHUV
DQG
RWKHU
HPSOR\HHV $FW WLOO WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ
LV EURXJKW RQ JUDQW LQ DLG
+HOG SDUD
,Q YLHZ RI WKH DERYH WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
DUH EHLQJ MRLQWO\ DQG VHYHUHO\ GLUHFWHG WR
HQVXUH SD\PHQW RI VDODU\ WR WKH YDOLGO\
DSSRLQWHG
VWDII
RI
WKH
3HWLWLRQHU
V
&ROOHJH
LQDVPXFK
DV
SURPRWLRQ
WR
XSJUDGH WKH &ROOHJH ZDV JUDQWHG E\ WKH
6WDWH *RYHUQPHQW DQG LWV DXWKRULWLHV DQG
GHQLDO RI SD\PHQW RI VDODU\ WR WKH YDOLGO\
DSSRLQWHG VWDII RI WKH &ROOHJH FDQQRW EH
MXVWLILHG 7KH FRQFHUQHG DXWKRULWLHV DUH
GLUHFWHG WR SD\ WR WKH YDOLGO\ DSSRLQWHG
WHDFKLQJ DQG QRQWHDFKLQJ VWDII RI WKH
&ROOHJH ZLWK HIIHFW IURP 0DUFK
ZLWKLQ D SHULRG RI WZR PRQWKV WR EH
FRPSXWHG IURP WKH GDWH RI ILOLQJ RI D
FHUWLILHG FRS\ RI WKLV MXGJHPHQW EHIRUH
WKH
FRQFHUQHG
DXWKRULW\
7KH
5HVSRQGHQWV DQG DOO RWKHU DXWKRULWLHV
DUH IXUWKHU GLUHFWHG WR PDNH SD\PHQW WR
WKH YDOLGO\ DSSRLQWHG WHDFKLQJ DQG QRQ
WHDFKLQJ VWDII RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU
V FROOHJH
UHJXODUO\ PRQWK E\ PRQWK ZLWK HIIHFW
IURP 'HFHPEHU LQ DFFRUGDQFH
ZLWK ODZ DV FRQWHPSODWHG XQGHU 83
-XQLRU +LJK 6FKRRO 3D\PHQW RI VDODULHV
RI WKH WHDFKHUV DQG RWKHU HPSOR\HHV
$FW 83 $FW RI WLOO FROOHJH
LV EURXJKW RQ JUDQWLQDLG OLVW XQGHU 83
,QWHUPHGLDWH (GXFDWLRQ $FW UHDG ZLWK
SD\PHQW RI VDODULHV $FW
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 /%(65
 6&&

By the Court

1.

All
the
Respondents
are
represented by the Standing Counsel and
the petition is being disposed of in
accordance with Rules of Court.

2. Committee of Management,
Saheed Bhawani Dutt Joshi (Ashok
Chakra)
Higher
Secondary
School,
Chaprun Tharali, Chamoli through its
Manager ( for short called the College) by
means of this petition under Article 226,
Constitution of India prays for issuing a
writ of mandamus commanding the
Respondents to pay salary to its teaching
and non-teaching staff with effect from
March 2000 (i.e. entire arrears of salary)
and further continue to pay their salary
month by month in accordance with law.

3. Petitioner manages the College,
which was initially a Junior High School
governed by the provisions of U.P. Basic
Education Act which was on the grant-inaid list to ensure regular payment of
salary to the staff of the said College at
1All] Committee of Management V. State of U.P. and others 223
the Junior High School level. The
College was upgraded on 28 January 1999
(Annesure-9 to the Writ Petition). In the
petition details have been given to
indicate that the staff of the College
(teaching and non teaching) was duly
recognised and was getting salary while
the College was up to Junior High School
level.

4.
The
grievance
of
the
Petitioner/Committee of Management is
that its staff is being denied grant-in-aid
ever since it has been recognised up to
High School level apparently on the
ground that the said College up to High
School level has not been brought on
grant-in-aid list and consequently the
State is denying its liability to reimburse
the salary.

5. This question has crept several
times. In the case of Dev Murti Shukla
versus State of U.P. and others- Writ
Petition no. 21602 of 1987 a Division
Bench of this Court, considering request
of
the
Petitioner
under
similar
circumstances, observed that there was no
dispute about duly appointed teachers and
other staff of the College and further that
the only controversy raised in that case
was that since the grant-in-aid was not
being given to the said college as it was
not brought on grant-in-aid list of High
School and Inter Colleges and hence no
salary was payable to the staff of the said
college under the provisions of U.P. High
Schools
and
Intermediate
College
(Payment of salaries of Teachers and
other
Employees)
Act,
1971.
After
considering respective contentions of the
parties in the Case of Deo Murtin Shukla
(supra) the Division Bench directed the
concerned authorities to pay salary and
other emoluments to the duly appointed
staff of the College within specified
period. The operative portion of the said
judgement reads:

" we direct the respondents no. 1 to 5
to pay to each of the petitioners their
salary and other emoluments with effect
from 1.6.1988, this shall be done within a
period of two months from today. The
payment shall include the salary till 30
November, 1989. The respondents shall
pay to each of the petitioners their salary
and other emoluments regularly with
effect from 1.12.1989 and onwards the
payments shall be made under the
provisions of the Act. We also make it
clear that if and when the institution is
given the grants in aid applicable to a
High School it will be open to the
petitioners, if the situation so calls for, to
claim the arrears of salary on the footing
that they were the employees in a High
School and the provisions of the U.P.
High Schools and Intermediate College (
Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
other Employees) Act, 11971 K were
applicable to them"

6. The aforesaid decision in the case
of Deo Murti Shukla again came up for
consideration before another Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh
Chandra Yadav versus State of U.P. and
others- Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition
No. 9412 of 1989, reported in 1989(1)
LBESR 471 and their Lordships, agreeing
with the decision of Deo Murti Shukla
(supra) issued a similar direction for
payment of salary against the State
Government and concerned authorities.
Paras 5 and 6 of the said judgement read:

"5. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and upon examination of
the averments made in the petition, the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
224
Court is of the opinion that the facts and
circumstances of the instant case are
almost
identical
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case of Sri Deo
Murti Shukla v. State of UP (supra) Sri
O.P.Singh, learned Standing Counsel
representing respondents no. 1 to 5 also
very
fairly
concedes
this
position.
Therefore, he does not dispute that this
petition has got to be allowed and the
petitioners ought to be granted reliefs
claimed by them.

6. Accordingly, the petition succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned order dated
12 April, 1989 (Annesure-3 to the
petition) is quashed and the respondents
no. 1 to 5 are directed to pay to each of
the petitioners their salary and other
emoluments with effect from 1 March,
1989 with a period of two months, to be
computed from today. The payment shall
also include the salary till 31 December,
1979. The respondents shall pay to each
of the petitioners their salary and other
emoluments regularly with effect from 1
January, 1998 K and onwards. The
payment shall be made under the
provisions of the Act (UP Act no. 6 of
1979). There is no order as to costs."

7. In the case of Chandigarh
Administration and others versus Rajni
Vali (Mrs.) and others- (2000) 2 SCC 42,
briefly stated, the facts of the case were
that Dev Samaj Girls Senior Secondary
School, Chandigarh, which was a private
educational institution duly recognised
and receiving grant-in-aid from the Union
Territory of Chandigarh Administration
since 1.12.1967, was allowed to start class
beyond Tenth Standard (i.e. upgraded up
to
Senior
Secondary
Level).
This
permission to run 11 and 12 Classes was
with the condition that no grant-in-aid
will be provided for additional staff. The
Classes of Senior Secondary Level, which
were run under Dev Samaj Degree
College, Chandigarh, were closed down
on the direction of the authorities and
were allowed to continue as part of Dev
Samaj Senior Secondary School. Some of
the lecturers, who were teaching different
subjects in 11 and 12 Classes of the
school, claimed salary at par with their
counter-parts
working
in
private
recognised institution Chandigarh. No
heed was paid by the institution and they
approached the High Court by filing Writ
Petition. Claim of such teachers was
refuted by the authorities on the ground
that permission to open 11 and 12 classes
was subject to the condition that no grantin-aid will be provided for additional staff
and, therefore, the claim of such teachers
for parity of salary with their counter-part
was not acceptable to the authorities.
High Court allowed the petition and
granted
relief
to
such
Petitioners
(teachers). Administration challenged the
same by filing appeal before the Supreme
Court. The Apex Court found that
continuance
of
such
teachers
was
essential for running the classes in
question. In other words, such Petitioners
were not surplus in the institution. In Para
6 of the judgement Supreme Court
observed:

"6. The position has to be accepted
as well settled that imparting primary and
secondary education to students is the
bounden duly of the State Administration.
It is a constitutional mandate that the
State shall ensure proper education to the
students on whom the future of the
society
depends.
In
line
with
this
principle, the State has enacted statutes
and framed rules and regulations to
control/regulate
establishment
and
1All] Committee of Management V. State of U.P. and others 225
running of private schools at different
levels. The State Government provides
grant -in-aid to private schools with a
view to ensure smooth running of the
institution and to ensure that the standard
of teaching does not suffer on account of
paucity of funds. It needs no emphasis
that appointment of qualified and efficient
teachers is a sine quo non for maintaining
high
standards
of teaching in any
education institution. Keeping in mind
these and other relevant factors this Court
in a number of cases has intervened for
setting right any discriminatory treatment
meted out to teaching and non-teaching
staff of a particular institution or a class of
institutions. To notice a few such
decisions of the point, we may refer to the
case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v.
State of Haryana. a Bench of three learned
Judges 1 of this Court clarifying the
judgement in Haryana State Adhyapak
Sangh vs. State of Haryana issued a
direction, inter alia, that the parity in the
pay scales and dearness allowance of
teachers employed in aided schools and
those employed in government schools
shall be revised and brought on a par with
the aided schools and dearness allowance
payable to the teachers employed in
government schools with effect from
1.1.1986

Again in Para 10 the Supreme Court
observed:

"Coming
to
the
contention
of
the
appellants
that
the
Chandigarh
Administration will find it difficult to bear
the additional financial burden if the
claim of Respondents 1 to 12 is accepted,
we need only say that such a contention
raised in different cases of similar nature
has been rejected by this Court. The State
Administration
cannot
shirk
its
responsibility
of
ensuring
proper
education in schools and colleges on the
plea of lack of resources. It is for the
authorities running the Administration to
find out the ways and means of securing
funds for the purpose. We do not deem it
necessary to consider this question in
further detail. The contention raised by
the
appellants
in
this
regard
is
rejected......"

Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
and
the
learned
Standing
Counsel Mr. U.K. Pandey.

8.

Upon
examination
of the
contentions made in the petition and
hearing learned counsels for the parties I
am of the opinion that the fact and
circumstances of the instant case are
almost
similar
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case of Dev Murti
Shukla (supra). The learned Standing
Counsel has fairly conceded this position.

9. The learned Standing Counsel,
however, pointed out with reference to
Para 1 of the petition that probably salary
has not been paid because copy of some
order being dated 27 January,2000 is not
before the concerned authorities. If that be
so, this is merely apology for excuse.
Copy of the order must be with the
concerned
education
authorities.
Department of Basic Education and
Secondary Education are Departments of
State
Government.
The
concerned
authorities ought to have obtained copy of
that order or in case any factual position is
to be ascertained regarding validity of
appointment of the teaching staff of the
erstwhile Junior High school (Basic
Education) the authority shall collect
material and pass order exposing its mind
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
226
for deciding to pay salary to the validly
appointed staff of the Petitioner College.

10. In view of the above, the
Respondents
are
being
jointly
and
severely directed to ensure payment of
salary to the validly appointed staff of the
Petitioner's
College
inasmuch
as
promotion to upgrade the College cannot
be justified. The concerned authorities are
directed to pay to the validly appointed
teaching and non-teaching staff of the
College with effect from March 2000
within a period of two months to be
computed from the date of filing of a
certified copy of this judgement before
the concerned authority. The Respondents
and all other authorities are further
directed to make payment to the validly
appointed teaching and non teaching staff
of the petitioner's college regularly month
by month with effect from 01st December
2000
in
accordance
with
law
as
contemplated under U.P. Junior High
School (Payment of Salaries of the
Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978
(U.P. Act 6 of 1979) till College is
brought on grant-in-aid list under U.P.
Intermediate Education Act read with
payment of Salaries Act, 1971.

Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.

5(9
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' 2&72%(5
'$7(' 2&72%(5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( 5. $*5$:$/ -
7+( +21
%/( 5. $*5$:$/ -

6DOHV 7D[ 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

0V 7KH .LVDQ 6DKNDUL &KLQL 0LOOV /WG
6KHLNKSXU %XGDXQ
«$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
7KH &RPPLVVLRQHU RI 6DOHV 7D[ 83
/XFNQRZ
«5HVSRQGHQW
&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQW
6UL 5DMHVK .XPDU
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6UL 6' 6LQJK
6&

&HQWUDO 6DOHV 7D[ $FW 6V
 E DQG $ UHDG ZLWK &HQWUDO 6DOHV
7D[ 5HJLVWUDWLRQ DQG 7XUQRYHU 5XOHV

5
5HJLVWUDWLRQ
RI
GHDOHU
:KHWKHU
WHUP
μ6WRUHV¶
LV
LQFOXGHG
LQ
5 &ODLP WR EHQHILW RI 6$6FRSH
+HOG 3DUDV DQG
)URP WKH YDULRXV GHFLVLRQV UHIHUUHG WR
DERYH WKH SULQFLSOH ZKLFK HPHUJHV LV
WKDW
LI
D
SURFHVV
RI
DFWLYLW\
LV
VR
LQWHJUDOO\
UHODWHG
WR
WKH
XOWLPDWH
PDQXIDFWXUH RI JRRGV VR WKDW ZLWKRXW
WKDW SURFHVV RU DFWLYLW\ PDQXIDFWXUH
PD\
LI
WKH
RUHWLFDOO\
SRVVLEOH
EH
FRPPHUFLDOO\
LQH[SHGLHQW
JRRGV
LQWHQGHG
IRU
XVH
LQ
WKH
SURFHVV
RU
DFWLYLW\ DV VSHFLILHG LQ UXOH ZLOO TXDOLI\
IRU VSHFLDO WUHDWPHQW 7KLV LV QRW WR VD\
WKDW
HYHU\
FDWHJRU\
RI
JRRGV
LQ
FRQQHFWLRQ
ZLWK
PDQXIDFWXUH
RU
LQ
UHODWLRQ
WR
PDQXIDFWXUH
RU
ZKLFK
IDFLOLWDWHV WKH FRQGXFW RI WKH EXVLQHVV RI
PDQXIDFWXUH ZLOO EH LQFOXGHG ZLWKLQ 5XOH

$SSO\LQJ WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG SULQFLSOHV
, ILQG WKDW WKH FHPHQW ZKLFK LV UHTXLUHG
E\
WKH
DSSOLFDQW
IRU
XVH
LQ
WKH
FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI IDFWRU\ EXLOGLQJ DQGRU
IRXQGDWLRQ
DV
KHOG
E\
WKH
+RQ¶EOH
6XSUHPH &RXUW LQ WKH FDVH RI -. &RWWRQ
VSLQQLQJ
DQG
ZHDYLQJ
0LOOV
&R
/WG
VXSUD ZKLFK KDV EHHQ IROORZHG E\ WKH
+RQ¶EOH .DUQDWND +LJK &RXUW LQ WKH FDVH
RI %DOODUSXU VWUDZ %RDUG 0LOOV /WG DQG
WKLV &RXUW LQ WKH FDVH RI 0V 6LYDOLN
&ROOXORVH /WG FDQQRW EH VDLG WKDW LW LV
XVHG HLWKHU GLUHFWO\ RU HYHQ UHPRWHO\ LQ
WKH
PDQXIDFWXUH
RI
ILQLVKHG
JRRGV
6LPLODU LV WKH FDVH RI VWHHO DQG SDLQWV
ZKLFK WRR LV UHTXLUHG RQO\ LQ WKH UHSDLUV
RI ERLOHU DQG SURWHFWLRQ RI PDFKLQHULHV
7KH\ FDQQRW EH VDLG WR EH XVHG HYHQ