# Ram Niwas Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 42
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-04
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 341 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-niwas-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52276
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Arrears of Salary - Post
of Assistant Teacher and Class IV posts -
Appointment accorded financial approval,
later on salary was stopped on 09.10.1998
and financial approval was cancelled -
Subsequently St. Govt. found the initial
appointment
valid
vide
order
dated
30.06.2021
-
Whether
order
dated
30.06.2021 will apply retrospectively or
prospectively
-
Held,
order
dated
30.06.2021 would relate back to the date
when the initial order dated 09.10.1998
was passed stopping salary payment to
petitioners - Mere fact that the St. has
omitted to pass any orders with regard to
arrears of salary to petitioners would be
irrelevant in view of the aforesaid fact,
since the dispute itself related to the
initial appointment of petitioners - High
Court
directed
the
respondent
to
implement the order dated 30.06.2021
upon the petitioners with retrospective
effect from 09.10.1998. (Para 13 and 18)
B. Service Jurisprudence - Doctrine of
relation back - Meaning and applicability
- Sweety Bhalla's case relied upon - The
Black's Law Dictionary defines 'relation
back' as : "The doctrine an act done at a
later time is, under certain circumstances,
treated as though it occurred at an earlier
time - The Supreme Court applied the
Doctrine of Relation Back in service
Jurisprudence by holding that the findings
of a disciplinary enquiry exonerating an
Officer would have to be given effect to as
they relate back to the date on which the
charges are framed - Held, order dated
30.06.2021 would relate back to the date
when the initial order dated 09.10.1998
was passed stopping salary payment to
petitioners. (Para 13 and 16)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been entitled to get had he not been
removed from service, alongwith 6%
simple interest per annum. The aforesaid
amount shall be paid to the petitioner
within three months from today.

34.

With
the
aforesaid
observations and direction, the petition is
allowed.

35.

Let
this
order
be
communicated to the Chairman, Uttar
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
Head Quarters Tehri Kothi, Lucknow and
the Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation, Azamgarh,
Region
Azamgarh
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 42
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 341 of 2023

Ram Niwas Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Girish Chandra Verma, Manvendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ajay Kumar

A. Service Law - Arrears of Salary - Post
of Assistant Teacher and Class IV posts -
Appointment accorded financial approval,
later on salary was stopped on 09.10.1998
and financial approval was cancelled -
Subsequently St. Govt. found the initial
appointment
valid
vide
order
dated
30.06.2021
-
Whether
order
dated
30.06.2021 will apply retrospectively or
prospectively
-
Held,
order
dated
30.06.2021 would relate back to the date
when the initial order dated 09.10.1998
was passed stopping salary payment to
petitioners - Mere fact that the St. has
omitted to pass any orders with regard to
arrears of salary to petitioners would be
irrelevant in view of the aforesaid fact,
since the dispute itself related to the
initial appointment of petitioners - High
Court
directed
the
respondent
to
implement the order dated 30.06.2021
upon the petitioners with retrospective
effect from 09.10.1998. (Para 13 and 18)
B. Service Jurisprudence - Doctrine of
relation back - Meaning and applicability
- Sweety Bhalla's case relied upon - The
Black's Law Dictionary defines 'relation
back' as : "The doctrine an act done at a
later time is, under certain circumstances,
treated as though it occurred at an earlier
time - The Supreme Court applied the
Doctrine of Relation Back in service
Jurisprudence by holding that the findings
of a disciplinary enquiry exonerating an
Officer would have to be given effect to as
they relate back to the date on which the
charges are framed - Held, order dated
30.06.2021 would relate back to the date
when the initial order dated 09.10.1998
was passed stopping salary payment to
petitioners. (Para 13 and 16)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Man Singh Vs St. of U.P. through Secretary &
others; 2022 SCC Online SC 726

2. Delhi Jal Board Vs Mahinder Singh; (2000) 7
SCC 210

3. Sweety Bhalla Vs Industrial Financial Corp. of
India Ltd.; 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6409

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

1. Heard Mr. Girish Chandra Verma,
learned counsel for petitioners and learned
State Counsel appearing on behalf of
7 All. Ram Niwas Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
43
opposite parties 1 to 5. No-one has put in
appearance on behalf of opposite party
no.6, who even otherwise is a proforma
party.

2. Petition has been filed seeking
implementation of order dated 30.06.2021
issued by the State Government pertaining
to payment of salary to petitioners. Further
prayer for arrears of salary on the
respective posts with effect from March
1998 up to June 2021 or till
the date of superannuation has also been
sought.

3. It has been submitted that earlier
petitioners had been appointed as Assistant
Teachers
and
on
Class
IV
posts
respectively in the institution concerned
whereafter financial approval was granted
and they were being paid salary in lieu
thereof. It is submitted that the institution
in question is a recognized and aided Junior
High School.It has also been submitted that
subsequently, vide order dated 09.10.1998
salary payment was stopped and vide order
dated 15.07.1999, the earlier approval
granted to petitioners was cancelled leading
to filing of various writ petitions, leading
petition being WRIT - A No. - 37807 of
1999 (Smt. Rajmuni Devi & others v.
Director of Education, Allahabad and
others). Details of all the petitions have
been
indicated
in
the
order
dated
30.06.2021. The aforesaid petitions were
thereafter disposed of by means of
judgment and order dated 02.11.2016. The
said
judgment
clearly
indicates
the
submission that the institution in question
was brought under grant-in-aid in year
1978 and Teachers and other employees
were paid salary through State Funds with
effect from 01.07.1984 whereafter a formal
order of approval was also granted.
Intermittently, certain disputes arose but
payment of salary continued to employees
of the institution whereafter order dated
15.07.1999 was passed. This Court vide its
judgment and order dated 02.11.2016
thereafter remitted the matter for a decision
to the Director of Education to pass
appropriate
orders
for
purposes
of
satisfaction of grievance of the employees
and their entitlement as per the U.P.
Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High
Schools) (Recruitment & Condition of
Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978.

4. It is in pursuance of this
direction that order dated 30.06.2021 has
been passed by the State Government.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners
submits that by means of aforesaid order,
the State Government has found the
petitioners of the present writ petition
qualified and eligible for being granted
salary through State Exchequer after
noticing the fact that their appointments
were valid. It is submitted that however
only prospective application of aforesaid
order has been made and salary payment to
petitioners with effect from March 1998
has been withheld.

6. It is submitted that the direction
issued by this Court and subsequent finding
recorded by the State Government would
be applicable from the date when such
salary was withheld particularly in view of
fact
that
the
initial
appointment
of
petitioners was found to be valid and as per
the rules.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners
has
placed
reliance
on
following
judgments:-

(i) decision of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Man Singh v. the
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State of U.P. through Secretary &
others reported in 2022 SCC
Online SC 726.
(ii) decision of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Delhi Jal Board
v. Mahinder Singh, reported in
(2000) 7 SCC 210;
(iii) decision of Delhi High
Court
in
Sweety
Bhalla
v.
Industrial Financial Corporation of
India Ltd., reported in 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 6409

8. Learned State Counsel on the
basis of counter affidavit has refuted the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for petitioner with the submission that since
there
is
no
direction
of
the
State
Government in order dated 30.06.2021 for
its retrospective applicability and for
payment of arrears, there is no question of
grant of salary or arrears with effect from
March 1998 and the order dated 30.06.2021
would in fact be applicable prospectively
and in pursuance thereof, salary payment
has already been made.

9.

Upon
consideration
of
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perusal of material on
record, it appears from judgment and order
of this Court dated 02.11.2016 and the
consequent order dated 30.06.2021 passed
by the State Government that admittedly
the institution in question was a recognized
aided Junior High School which was
brought under grant in aid and salary
payment to employees including petitioners
was being made through State Exchequer
till passing of orders dated 09.10.1998 and
15.07.1999. The said order was thereafter
challenged and directions were issued by
this Court as indicated herein above. The
dispute clearly pertained to validity of
appointment of petitioners and their right to
be granted salary through the State
Exchequer. The dispute therefore clearly
arose due to passing of orders dated
09.10.1998 and 15.07.1999.

10. A perusal of order dated
30.06.2021
passed
by
the
State
Government makes it evident that after
consideration of all the material on record,
the State Government has clearly found the
petitioners? initial appointment to be valid
and in consonance with the relevant Rules.
The order also stipulates that the petitioners
are eligible for salaries through State
Exchequer while also indicating that they
had already been paid salaries for a period
of nine years from 1989 till 1998.
Directions were thereafter issued for
payment of salaries from State Exchequer.

11. The only dispute required to be
adjudicated upon in the present writ
petition is with regard to whether order
dated
30.06.2021
would
have
any
retrospective application or would be
applicable only prospectively.

12. With regard to aforesaid
dispute, it is quite evident as narrated
herein above that petitioners were initially
appointed in the School in question on
various dates from 1975 onward. As per
order dated 30.06.2021 itself, it is indicated
that they were paid salaries from the State
Exchequer from 1989 till 1998 whereafter
it
was
stopped
in
year
1998
and
subsequently vide order dated 15.07.1999.
The said order was challenged before this
Court in year 1999 itself with such petition
being decided vide judgment and order
dated 02.11.2016 and in pursuance thereof
the order dated 30.06.2021 has been passed
finding petitioners eligible and qualified in
terms of the rules ever since the date of
their initial appointment. Clearly, the
7 All. Ram Niwas Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
45
dispute pertaining to petitioners? eligibility,
qualification and entitlement for being paid
salary through State Exchequer relates back
to orders dated 09.10.1998 and 15.07.1999
whereby
salary
through
the
State
Exchequer was stopped. It is thus apparent
that the dispute has continued ever since
09.10.1998 continuously without any break
and therefore in the considered opinion of
this Court, the dispute would relate back to
the date when the initial order dated
09.10.1998 was passed.

13. Vide order dated 30.06.2021 as
well, it is the initial appointment of
petitioners which has been held to be valid
whereafter the State Government itself has
found petitioners to be eligible for payment
of salary from the State Exchequer. In such
circumstances, in the considered opinion of
this Court, the order dated 30.06.2021
would relate back to the date when the
initial order dated 09.10.1998 was passed
stopping salary payment to petitioners. The
mere fact that the State has omitted to pass
any orders with regard to arrears of salary
to petitioners would be irrelevant in view of
the aforesaid fact, since the dispute itself
related to the initial appointment of
petitioners.

14. Hon?ble the Supreme Court in
Man Singh (supra) has held that even if
appointment is irregular and persons have
discharged duties in lieu thereof, they have
to be paid their salaries since the State
cannot take work from any employee
without payment of any salary. The
aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable
in the present facts and circumstances of
the case since admittedly petitioners have
continued in service ever since the date of
initial appointment and have now as well
been found to be eligible for salary
payment through State Exchequer.
15.

Considering
aforesaid
circumstances, it is evident that order dated
30.06.2021 would be covered by the
doctrine of relation back as has been
explained by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Delhi Jal Board (supra) in the following
terms:-

"5. The right to be considered by
the Departmental Promotion Committee is
a fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 16 of the Constitution of India,
provided a person is eligible and is in the
zone of consideration. The sealed cover
procedure permits the question of his
promotion to be kept in abeyance till the
result of any pending disciplinary inquiry.
But the findings of the disciplinary inquiry
exonerating the officer would have to be
given effect to as they obviously relate back
to the date on which the charges are
framed. If the disciplinary inquiry ended in
his favour, it is as if the officer had not
been
subjected
to
any
disciplinary
inquiry...................".

16. The Delhi High Court in
Sweety Bhalla (supra) has also considered
the said aspect of the doctrine in the
following manner:-

 '15. Learned counsel further
submits that the principle of 'relationback' was mention in order of the chief
Commissioner
for
Disabilities
dated
12.04.2006. The Black's Law Dictionary
defines ?relation back? as : - ''The
doctrine that an act done at a later time is,
under certain circumstances, treated as
though it occurred at an earlier time''.
This doctrine has international relevance
and application and has been highlighted
in the 2010 judgment of the US Supreme
Court in the case of ?Krupski v. Costa
Crociere S.P.A.?, wherein the American
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Supreme
Court
allowed
Krupski's
amendment to add a new defendant, after the
period of limitation was over, to relate back
to the time of the original filing, thereby
satisfying
the
applicable
statute
of
limitations. In India, this doctrine or rule has
been incorporated in a number of legislations
and service jurisprudence including number
of Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India. In the case of Delhi Jal Board v.
Mahinder Singh, (2000) 7 SCC 210, the
Supreme Court applied the Doctrine of
Relation Back in service Jurisprudence by
holding that the findings of a disciplinary
enquiry exonerating an Officer would have to
be given effect to as they relate back to the
date on which the charges are framed."

17. It is thus quite evident that
doctrine of relation back would be applicable
in
service
matters
particularly
when
subsequent exoneration or order passed in
favour of an employee relates to the initial
dispute.

18. In view of aforesaid, the
opposite parties are directed to implement the
decision
dated
30.06.2021
upon
the
petitioners with retrospective effect from
09.10.1998. As a consequence thereof, the
petitioners would be eligible for payment of
their arrears of salary with effect from March,
1998 till June, 2021 or till the date of their
superannuation, as applicable.

19. Opposite party no.2 and other
competent authorities shall ensure payment of
arrears of salaries to petitioners within a
period of four months from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced before
authority concerned.

20. Consequently, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear
their own costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 46
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 345 of 2024

Supreintending Engineer Electricity Work
Division Prayagraj & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Israr Ali & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Adarsh Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shamim Uddin Khan

CIVIL LAW - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226, Allahabad High Court Rules, -
Chapter VIII, Rule 5 - Intra-court Appeal -
against order of Single Judge - respondentpetitioner's claiming a month's extra salary
(honorarium) in every financial year on the
basis of an order issued by corporation
which
was
instituted
with
the
explicit
objective of compensating drivers for the
additional work and hardships they endure -
principle of acquiescence - court finds that,
as respondent-Petitioner's prolonged inaction
and failure to demand the honorarium during
his service period, despite being aware that
he was not performing the duties of a driver,
constitutes acquiescence - although his
designation has never been changed through
any formal order during service period - he
cannot take an advantage of this clerical
mistake - if the corporation will be saddled
to pay the honorarium, as directed by writ
court, will create a huge financial impact for
the corporation - therefore, his claim for the
honorarium is not justified -consequently,
special appeal allowed. (Para - 13, 17, 20,
23)