# Ratan Samaj High School v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1253
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-08-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32662 of 1993
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ratan-samaj-high-school-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42677
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

S.C.

U.P.
High
School
&
Intermediate
Education(Payment of salaries of Teacher
and other employee)Act 1971-Section 13A- Payment of salary-Junior High School
running
under
grant
in
aid-after
upgradation all teaching and non teaching
staff denied salary from state fund-heldentitled for salary from state exchequer.

Held: Para-13
In view of the above, I am of the view that
even prior to insertion of Section 13-A in Act
1978 on 1.11.2000, the position of law was
same, namely the teacher and the staff of
Junior High School, which was aided prior to
upgradation to High School, will continue to
get the salary and allowances from the State
Government even after upgradation to High
School. To remove the doubt, Section 13-A
has been inserted in Act 1978, which clearly
stipulate the above position. Section 13-A is,
therefore, clarificatory in nature and applies
retrospectively.

Case Law discussed:
1998(1) LBESR 471; (2001) 1 UPLBEC 213;
2003-LBESR-2-671; (1994) 3 UPLBEC 2037;
(2001) 1 SCC 43; 2010(1) ESC 44 (SC).

## Text

3 All] Ratan Samaj High School Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1253
marriage certificate unauthorizedly but
the learned Standing Counsel informs that
on inquiry being made from the residence of
the aforesaid Advocate it has been revealed
that he has died on 22.12.2012 and his death
is registered with the Registrar of births and
deaths Mirzapur. In view of the above and
the photocopy of death certificate produced
which is taken on record, no action for
unauthorizedly issuing marriage certificate
can be taken against the Advocate.

14. Accordingly, the protection
which has been claimed in this writ
petition cannot be extended to any of
them. No case for exercise of discretion in
favour of the petition has been made out.

15. The writ petition is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32662 of 1993

Ratan Samaj High School ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Bhall, Sri R.C. Pal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
High
School
&
Intermediate
Education(Payment of salaries of Teacher
and other employee)Act 1971-Section 13A- Payment of salary-Junior High School
running
under
grant
in
aid-after
upgradation all teaching and non teaching
staff denied salary from state fund-heldentitled for salary from state exchequer.

Held: Para-13
In view of the above, I am of the view that
even prior to insertion of Section 13-A in Act
1978 on 1.11.2000, the position of law was
same, namely the teacher and the staff of
Junior High School, which was aided prior to
upgradation to High School, will continue to
get the salary and allowances from the State
Government even after upgradation to High
School. To remove the doubt, Section 13-A
has been inserted in Act 1978, which clearly
stipulate the above position. Section 13-A is,
therefore, clarificatory in nature and applies
retrospectively.

Case Law discussed:
1998(1) LBESR 471; (2001) 1 UPLBEC 213;
2003-LBESR-2-671; (1994) 3 UPLBEC 2037;
(2001) 1 SCC 43; 2010(1) ESC 44 (SC).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.C. Pal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj
Rai, learned Standing Counsel.

2. The undisputed facts of the present
case are that the petitioner was running a
Junior High School. The institution was
covered under the provisions of the U.P.
Recognised Junior High School (Payment of
Salaries of Teachers and other Employees)
Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act
1978). Since the Junior High School was
under the grant-in-aid, therefore, the salary of
the staff was being paid by the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari and Basic Lekha Adhikari, Agra.
On 22nd March, 1993, by the order of the
Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, Meerut, the Institution has been
upgraded from Junior High School to High
School level and the same has been granted
recognition. Aid was not given to the level of
High School by the State Government and,
therefore, it did not fall within the purview of
the U.P. High School and Intermediate
Education (Payment of Salaries of Teachers
and other Employees) Act, 1971.
1254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. It appears that up to the June, 1993,
the staff of the Junior High School had
received the salary from the respondent nos.
3 and 4, but thereafter the payment of salary
has been stopped. The payment of salary has
been stopped on the ground that after
upgradation to High School it ceases to be
Junior High School and does not fall within
the purview of Act 1978.

4. Challenging the action of the
respondent nos. 3 and 4, the petitioner
filed the present writ petition. On 15th
September, 1993, as an interim measure,
this Court has directed respondents to pay
the salary to the staff of the petitioner
institution as it was being paid till June,
1993.

5. The question involved in the
present writ petition is whether after
upgradation to the High School, the staff
of the Junior High School, who were
getting the salary from respondent nos. 3
and 4, the institution being under the grant
in aid, are entitled to get the salary from
the State Government.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that when the petitionerinstitution was Junior High School, it was
under the grant in aid and the staff of the
Junior High School was getting salary
from the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and even
after the upgradation to the High School,
they are entitled to get the salary till the
institution falls within the purview of Act
of 1971. He submitted that for the
payment of salary during the transitory
period, the Legislature has inserted
Section 13-A in Act of 1978. The said
Section is clarificatory in nature. He
further submitted that the issue involved
in the present petition is squarely covered
by the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Dev Murti
Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, in
Writ Petition No. 21602 of 1987, which
has been followed by another Division
Bench of this Court in the case of
Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. State of
U.P. and others, reported in 1998(1)
LBESR 471 and has also been followed
by the Learned Single Judge of this
Court in the case of Committee of
Management, Shaheed Bhawani Dutt
Joshi
(Ashok
Chakra)
Higher
Secondary School, Chaprun Tharali,
Chamoli v. State of U.P. and others,
reported in (2001) 1 UPLBEC 213. He
also placed reliance on the decision of the
learned Single Judge of this Court in the
case of Nasiruddin Siddiqui v. State of
U.P., reported in 2003-LBESR-2-671
and Ram Singh Savita and others v.
State of U.P. and others, reported in
(1994) 3 UPLBEC 2037.

7.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
submitted that once the institution was
upgraded to the High School, it ceases to be
Junior High School and, therefore, the
provision of the Act 1978 does not apply
and the salary to the staff of the Junior High
School cannot be given by the Government.

8.

I
have
considered
rival
submissions.

9. The issue involved in the present
case is no more res intigra. In the case of
Dev Murti Shukla vs. State of U.P.
(Supra), under the similar circumstances
that the institution was Junior High School
and was under the grant in aid, but after
upgradation to the High School, it was not
under the grant in aid and, therefore, the
salary to the staff of the institution has been
denied by the State Government, the
Division Bench of this Court, on the
aforesaid facts, has directed the concerned
3 All] Ratan Samaj High School Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1255
authorities to pay the salary and other
emoluments to the duly appointed staff of
the College. In the case of Ramesh
Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. and
others (Supra), following the decision of
the Division Bench in Dev Murti Shukla's
case, a direction has been given to pay the
salary to the duly appointed employees. The
aforesaid two decisions have been followed
by the learned Single Judge in the case of
Nasiruddin Siddiqui v. State of U.P.
(supra), and Ram Singh Savita and
others v. State of U.P. and others (supra).

10. It appears that in order to clarify
the
position,
the
Legislature
has
introduced Section 13-A in Act 1978 by
U.P. Act No. 34 of 2000, published in
U.P. Gazette, Extra, Part I, Section (Ka)
1st March, 2000, which reads as follows:-

"13-A. Transitory provision in
respect
of
certain
upgraded
institutions.-
(1)
Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, the
provisions of this Act shall, mutatis
mutandis, apply, to an institution which is
upgraded to High School or Intermediate
standard and, to such teachers and other
employees thereof in respect of whose
employment maintenance grant is paid by
the State Government to such institution.

(2)For the purpose of this section the
reference to the students wherever they
occur in Section 5, shall be construed as
reference to the students of classes up to
junior high school level only."

11. It is clear that Section 13-A has
been introduced to protect the interest of
those Junior High School Institutions,
which were under the grant-in-aid and
subsequently upgraded to High School
and were not getting any maintenance aid
from the State Government. It provides
for payment of salary to the teachers and
other staff of such institutions, who were
duly appointed and in respect of whose
employment maintenance grant is paid by
the State Government to such institution.

12. In the case of State of U.P. and
others vs. Ram Charitra (2001) 1 SCC
43, the Apex Court has held that the
position was same even prior to insertion
of Section 13-A in the Act of 1978.

13. In view of the above, I am of the
view that even prior to insertion of
Section 13-A in Act 1978 on 1.11.2000,
the position of law was same, namely the
teacher and the staff of Junior High
School,
which
was
aided
prior
to
upgradation to High School, will continue
to get the salary and allowances from the
State Government even after upgradation to
High School. To remove the doubt, Section
13-A has been inserted in Act 1978, which
clearly stipulate the above position. Section
13-A is, therefore, clarificatory in nature
and applies retrospectively.

14. It will also be useful to refer a
recent decision of the Apex Court in the
case of State of U.P. and others v.
Committee
of
Management,
Mata
Tapeswari Sarswati Vidya Mandir and
others, reported in 2010 (1) ESC 44 (SC).
Though this decision is not directly on the issue
involved, but it has some bearing on the issue.
In the said case, the Junior High School
Sections were not under the grant in aid. They
have been denied benefit of grant in aid. The
expectation of the institution were negated
when by the notification dated 7th September,
2006, the Directorate of Basic Education, U.P.,
decided to bring one thousand unaided
permanently recognised (A-Class) Junior High
Schools on its grant in aid list, but included a
1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
condition. It was categorically indicated that the
institution imparting education below or higher
than Class 6 to 8 would not be eligible to apply.
As a result of the above, some institutions were
completely excluded from the grant in aid list
scheme inasmuch as a decision had been taken
by the State Government not to provide grant
in aid to educational institutions of Junior High
School after their upgradation as High School
or Intermediate College and an exception was
made in respect of the institutions, which had
been receiving grant in aid for their Junior High
Schools Sections, despite the fact that the said
institution had been upgraded. In the writ
petition, Condition No. 2(iii) and Condition No.
12 of the Government Order dated 7th
September, 2006 were challenged. Learned
Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and
quashed the aforesaid two conditions being
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The decision of the
learned Single Judge has been upheld in the
Special Appeal. The State Government filed
Appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex
Court has upheld the order of the learned
Single Judge and the order of the Division
Bench in Special Appeal. In the said decision, it
has been held that when one thousand
educational institutions were to be provided
such benefit, non-inclusion of the respondent
institutions from being considered for the grant
in aid for the Junior High School Sections is
wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained,
merely because on account of the cut off date
of grant of recognition. They had not been
brought within the ambit of grant in aid scheme
on account of their seniority position, namely,
upgradation to the High School. The Apex
Court has also considered Section 13-A
inserted in 1978 Act, which provides assistance
to those institutions, which had already been
covered by the grant in aid scheme. The
aforesaid position of law is only beneficial for
the limited purpose that even after upgradation
to the High School, Junior High Schools were
held entitled for the benefit of the grant in aid.

15. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to pay the salary to
the staff of the Junior High School of the
petitioner-institution,
who
were
duly
appointed till the institution may come
within the purview of 1971 Act.
--------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33172 of 2013

Narendra Pal Singh and Anr. .Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Pal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Garun Pal Singh

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Protection of
married couple-date of birth of girl as stated
by petitioner-15.02.95-as per report date of
birth shown 15.12.96-as per record of boarddate of birth found mentioned as 15.12.96certificate produced by petitioner being
forged document-petition dismissed with cost
of rs. 25000/-further direction to lodge FIR.

Held: Para-13&14
13. The Deputy Secretary, U.P. Board
who has produced record on examining
the original certificate as produced by
learned counsel for the petitioners states
that the certificate is not genuine as
there is a colour difference and the paper
used
therein
is
not
stout
enough.