# Manoj Kumar Nagar and others v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1035
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-09-16
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 828 of 2008
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani, Kashi Nath Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-nagar-and-others-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-41719
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

3 All] Manoj Kumar Nagar and others V. The State of U.P. and others
1035

(i) The statutory corporation as well as
the societies are not Union even if they are
established by the Union Government. They
are not covered by the office memo dated
26.4.1994
issued
by
the
Central
Government;

(ii) The recovery of service charges in
pursuance of office memo dated 26.4.1994
is illegal and are quashed. However, it will
be open for the respondents to assess and
charge such tax or fee as permissible under
the law after giving reasonable opportunity
to the petitioners.

With these observations, the writ
petitions are allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE KASHI NATH PANDEY, J.

Special Appeal No. 828 of 2008

Manoj Kumar Nagar and others

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. and others

 ...Respondent

Counsel forthe Petitioner
Sri Pradeep Pandey
Sri Kamlesh Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent
Sri S.D.Sahai
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Grant inaid by G.O. Dated 7.9.2006 about 1000
institutions running Junior High Schoolrequired to be taken in grant in aid-the
application of the petitioner institutionrejection on ground of arrival after one
day and the institution in question upgraded to High School-held-not properas per law developed by Apex Court-up
gradation of institution shall not come in
consideration of grant in aid-to the
Junior High School Section-Single Judge
failed to consider this aspect-judgment
set-a-side-direction
issued
to
the
authorities to consider as fresh within
specified period.

Held: Para 7

Both the grounds cannot be sustained
inasmuch as the application was sent by
registered post, before the date fixed for
receiving the applications. The State
Government was as such not justified in
refusing
to
accept
the
application.
Further we find that inspite of the
objections of late arrival, the application
was
actually
considered
and
the
institution was not found qualified to
receive the ground on the ground that it
was upgraded to Junior High School. In
the Supreme Court judgment cited as
above, it has now been held that
upgradation of the institution as High
School cannot be a ground to refuse the
grant-in-aid
to
Junior
High
School
section.
Case law discussed:
2008 (2) ESC 1497 (All) (DB), Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 4630 of 2008

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Shri Kamlesh Shukla and
Shri Pradeep Pandey for the petitioners
appellants.

2. Shri Manoj Kumar Nagar,
Principal and 16 Assistant Teachers of
'Nain Singh Junior High School, Shivali,
District Bulandshahr are aggrieved by the
judgment of learned Single Judge dated
23.1.2008 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
1317 of 2007 Manoj Kumar Nagar and
others vs. State of UP and others, by
which their writ petition for grant-in-aid
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
to the Junior High School fulfilling the
terms
and
conditions
under
the
Government Order dated 7.9.2006, was
dismissed
on
the
ground
that
the
petitioners
were
working
in
the
institution, which was established to be
maintained
from
its
own
financial
resources, and thus, it cannot expect the
State Government to pay salary to the
teachers and its employees. Learned
Judge found that the judicious discretion
of the State Government to choose some
of the institutions, which comply with the
conditions for grant-in-aid, is not subject
to discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

3. Shri Kamlesh Shukla and Shri
Pradeep Pandey learned counsel for
appellant would submit that the institution
was given permanent recognition as
Junior High School on 1.7.1985 under the
Government Order dated 7.9.2006, by
which the State Government had decided
to give grant-in-aid to 1000 Junior High
Schools running classes from 6 to 8. The
application for grant-in-aid, sent by
registered
post
was
received
on
4.10.2006, whereas the forms were
required
to
be
deposited
between
14.9.2006 to 3.10.2006. The name of the
Junior High School, in which petitioners
are teaching, was not included in the list
on the ground that the Junior High School
was upgraded to High School, and thus
did not qualify for being included in the
grant-in-aid list, which was applicable to
those Junior High School, running only
from Class 6 to 8.

4. In the counter affidavit of Smt.
Kamlesh Gupta, Deputy Basic Education
Officer, First, Bulandshahr, only these
two reasons are given for not including
the Junior High School, in which the
petitioners are teaching in the grant-in-aid
list.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants
has relied upon a judgment in Vidya Devi
Laghu madhyamik Vidyalaya, Basti vs.
State of UP and others 2008 (2) ESC
1497 (All) (DB) and the judgment of
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition
(C) No. 4630 of 2008 State of UP and
others vs. Committee of Management,
Tapeshwari Saraswati Vidya Mandir
and others, decided on December 2, 2009
to allege that the upgradation of the
school, cannot be taken as a ground to
disqualify the school.

6. We find that learned Single Judge
has not considered the grievance of the
petitioner in the light of the objections
taken by the respondents. The petitioners'
application was rejected only on the
ground, that it was received a day later
than the date fixed and that the institution
was upgraded as High School.

7. Both the grounds cannot be
sustained inasmuch as the application was
sent by registered post, before the date
fixed for receiving the applications. The
State Government was as such not
justified in refusing to accept the
application. Further we find that inspite of
the
objections
of
late
arrival,
the
application was actually considered and
the institution was not found qualified to
receive the ground on the ground that it
was upgraded to Junior High School. In
the Supreme Court judgment cited as
above, it has now been held that
upgradation of the institution as High
School cannot be a ground to refuse the
grant-in-aid
to
Junior
High
School
section.
3 All] Krishna Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1037

8. The Special Appeal is allowed.
The judgment of learned Single Judge
dated 23.1.2008 in Writ Petition No. 1317
of 2007 is set aside. The respondents are
directed
to
reconsider
petitioners'
application in the light of judgments as
above very expeditiously, and in any case
within a period of two months from the
date the petitioners furnish a certified
copy of the judgment alongwith the
relevant records in the office of the
Director of Basic Education, UP.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.10.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J.
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Writ Petition No. 1495 of 2010

Krishna Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Constitution of India, Art 226-Medical
reimbursement-petitioner
working
as
A.D.J. Retired from Distt. 'A'-put claim at
Distt 'B' where presently residing-deniel
by Distt. Judge at place 'B'-held-not
proper general direction issued to all the
Head of Depott. to process such claim as
per choice made by the retired person or
his family member-if not worked in that
particular Distt.-summon entire service
record from the place of last workingpromptly clear the same.

Held: Para 9

To give full meaning and effect to the
benefit of medical reimbursement to a
retired government servant and other
persons
eligible
under
the
rules/government orders, we make it
clear and provide that such a medical
claim can be placed/put forward before
the Head of the concerned office where
the person concerned is residing and
intents to submit his claim, or also at a
place
from
where
the
government
servant has retired. This would be the
choice of the person concerned. In case
a government servant is retired from a
different place and he lodges his claim at
the place where he is residing, it will be
the duty and responsibility of the said
office/Head of Department to ask for
necessary records and information, if any
required from the place from where the
government servant has retired and the
office aforesaid would be under an
obligation
to
provide
all
necessary
details and documents to the office,
where
the
government
servant
has
applied for reimbursement. Care has to
be taken that in such a case unusual
delay may not occur, so that the purpose
of the government order does not stand
defeated.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.)

1. Notice on behalf of respondent
nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 has been accepted by the
learned Chief Standing Counsel and on
behalf of respondent no.4, by Sri Manish
Kumar.

2. With the consent of the parties'
counsel, the petition is being disposed of
finally at the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner had retired
from the post of Additional District
Judge, District Balia in November, 1996.
The petitioner has claimed reimbursement
with respect to his medical claim of the
year 2005. The petitioner went to place
his papers in the office of the District
Judge, Bahraich, where he is residing
after retirement, but the District Judge has
refused the same, saying that such a claim
can be reimbursed only from the place,