# Satendra Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1047
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-17
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 31168 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satendra-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51405
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Self Financed Independent
Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2018 -
Sibling Fee Relief Scheme - Transfer
Certificates - Writ of Mandamus - Article
226-- The petitioners challenged the striking off
of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (children of petitioner
No. 1) from the rolls of a CBSE-affiliated school
(respondent Nos. 6 and 7) and the issuance of
transfer certificates dated 23.03.2023, seeking
their re-enrollment and permission to attend
classes. The dispute arose from the denial of a
50% Sibling Fee Relief Scheme for 2022-2024,
introduced by the school, due to late fee
payment by petitioner No. 1, leading to a
cumulative default of Rs. 76,122. The school's
refusal to extend the relief, coupled with alleged
misbehavior by petitioner No. 1, complaints to
the IGRS portal, police, and District Fee
Regulatory Committee, and a defamation suit by
the school, escalated the conflict. The school
issued transfer certificates, though petitioners'
children continued attending classes without fee
acceptance or attendance marking. Held: The
Sibling Fee Relief was conditional, not a right,
and the petitioners' late payment (post05.07.2022) justified its denial. The court found
mutual fault in the escalation but prioritized the
children's education. Considering the academic
session 2023-2024 was nearly over (four weeks
left),
re-admission
for
that
session
was
impractical due to closed CBSE registration and
low attendance. The court disposed of the
petition with mutual conditions: petitioner No. 1
to withdraw all complaints (IGRS, police, Fee
Regulatory Committee), deposit defaulted and
future fees, and undertake good conduct;
respondent No. 7 to withdraw the defamation
suit, cancel transfer certificates, and re-admit
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 for 2024-2025. No costs
were awarde

## Text

2 All. Satendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1047
Creation of slums resulting in increase in
density has to be prevented. What the Slum
Clearance Department has to show,
however, does not seem to be visible. It is
the garbage and solid waste generated by
these slums which require to be dealt with
most expeditiously and on the basis of
priority."

18. In the said background and
looking into the entirety of the matter this
Court finds no reason to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in favour of
petitioners. Thus, all the writ petitions are
dismissed. Writ-C No.642 of 2024 is
dismissed so far it relates to petitioner no.1
Mohd. Shafeek and petitioner no.5 Smt.
Shahana only. Similarly Writ-C No.527 of
2024 is also dismissed so far it relates to
petitioner no.6 Abdulla only. Remaining
petitioners in these two writ petitions are
being considered along with the other
bunch of writ petitions of actual slum
dwellers, leading petition being Writ-C
No.1372 of 2024.

19. Interim orders, if any, granted
earlier, stands discharged with regard to the
aforesaid petitioners.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1047
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - C No. 31168 of 2023

Satendra Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ritesh Upadhyay, Sri Shesh Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, Sri Hridai
Narain Pandey, Sri Tarun Agrawal

Civil Law - U.P. Self Financed Independent
Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2018 -
Sibling Fee Relief Scheme - Transfer
Certificates - Writ of Mandamus - Article
226-- The petitioners challenged the striking off
of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (children of petitioner
No. 1) from the rolls of a CBSE-affiliated school
(respondent Nos. 6 and 7) and the issuance of
transfer certificates dated 23.03.2023, seeking
their re-enrollment and permission to attend
classes. The dispute arose from the denial of a
50% Sibling Fee Relief Scheme for 2022-2024,
introduced by the school, due to late fee
payment by petitioner No. 1, leading to a
cumulative default of Rs. 76,122. The school's
refusal to extend the relief, coupled with alleged
misbehavior by petitioner No. 1, complaints to
the IGRS portal, police, and District Fee
Regulatory Committee, and a defamation suit by
the school, escalated the conflict. The school
issued transfer certificates, though petitioners'
children continued attending classes without fee
acceptance or attendance marking. Held: The
Sibling Fee Relief was conditional, not a right,
and the petitioners' late payment (post05.07.2022) justified its denial. The court found
mutual fault in the escalation but prioritized the
children's education. Considering the academic
session 2023-2024 was nearly over (four weeks
left),
re-admission
for
that
session
was
impractical due to closed CBSE registration and
low attendance. The court disposed of the
petition with mutual conditions: petitioner No. 1
to withdraw all complaints (IGRS, police, Fee
Regulatory Committee), deposit defaulted and
future fees, and undertake good conduct;
respondent No. 7 to withdraw the defamation
suit, cancel transfer certificates, and re-admit
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 for 2024-2025. No costs
were awarde
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shesh Kumar, learned
counsel appearing along with Shri Ritesh
Upadhyay,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Shri H. N.
Pandey, learned counsel for the CBSE,
New Delhi/respondent No. 5 and Shri
Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

2. A claim of Sibling Fee relief of
50% introduced by the respondent Nos. 6
and 7 institution for the Session 20222023-2024 and its denial on account of a
solitary default leading to unpleasantaries
being exchanged between the petitioner
No. 1 and the school authorities respondent
Nos. 6 & 7, lodging of complaints, police
complaints,
defamation
suit
and
culminating
in
issuance
of
transfer
certificates against the petitioner Nos. 2 and
3 has travelled to this Court.

3. The writ petition has been filed for
issuance
of
a
writ
of
mandamus
commanding the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 to
accept the fees of the petitioner No. 2 and
3, enroll their names in the school rolls and
permit them to take their respective classes
without any hindrance in the interest of
justice.

4. The facts giving rise to the
controversy involved in the instant writ
petition briefly stated are that the petitioner
No. 1 is an ex-serviceman having retired
from the post of Sergeant in the Indian Air
Force. The elder son of the petitioner No. 1,
namely, Sushmit Dagar was a student of
the school run by the respondent Nos. 6 and
7 and passed out in the academic session
2021-22 and is currently pursuing B.Tech
course in IIT, Kanpur. The other children
of the petitioner No. 1 i.e. the petitioner
Nos. 2 and 3 took admission in the
institution of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in
classes 6th and 4th in the academic Session
2020-2021 and studying in classes 8th and
6th in the academic session 2022-2023.

5. On 5th of August, 2021 the school
administration
introduced
a
Scheme/Circular for fee rebate under the
head of COVID relief and Sibling Relief
for the academic session 2022-2023-2024.
The Sibling Relief Scheme provided 50%
fee relief to parents who have admitted
their two children to the school and such
fee relief would be given to the younger
sibling who is the biological offspring of
the same parents. The relief process would
be fully automated and once the application
is received, processed and approved, credit
note would be automatically posted to the
younger ward's fee account. The credit note
would be posted only upon timely payment
of fee every quarter i.e. 5th April, 5th July,
5th October and 5th January. The scheme
further provided that the relief would not be
available to parents who wish to pay school
fee in monthly installments or fee payment
is received beyond due date. The relief
would also be available to the parents who
deposit the entire year fee in one go, on or
before 5th April. The scheme further
provided that the full fee of the older
sibling and balance fee for the younger
sibling must be deposited on or before the
due date to avail the relief and would be
available to one child only at a time. Apart
from the above, the scheme provided that it
would remain applicable for session 20232024 and that the school reserved its right
to withdraw the relief post 2023-2024 or if
a child is found guilty of disciplinary
misdemeanor damages school property and
is unable to pass exams or the parents is
found misbehaving with school staff or his
behaviour
is
questionable
and
any
disrespect towards school or its staff by the
parents or child would make the relief
withdrawn.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the combined fee of the
2 All. Satendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1049
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 after taking into
consideration the benefit of the Sibling
Scheme and 10% COVID relief works out
to a sum of Rs.52,704/- per quarter which
the petitioner No. 1 deposited for the
session 2022-2023. A detailed chart has
been depicted in Para 12 of the writ petition
giving the dates, cheque Nos. and amount
deposited. It is contended that for the
academic session 2022-2023 the fee of
petitioner No. 3 was deposited to the extent
of Rs.70,272/- while that of the petitioner
No. 2 was deposited to the extent of
Rs.1,40,544/- as per the circular dated
5.8.2021. The total fee deposited in respect
of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is Rs.2,10,816/-.
The respondent Nos. 6 & 7, however,
demanded deposit of balance fee which
according to them was Rs.76,122/-. The
issue regarding the balance fee due could
not be sorted out and the respondents
insisted for deposit of the balance fee and
the class teachers of the children required
the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 to get the
balance fee deposited. The petitioner No. 1
lodged a complaint against the respondent
Nos. 6 & 7 on the IGRS portal and also
before
the
District
Fee
Regulatory
Committee under the U.P. Self Financed
Independent School (Fee Regulation) Act,
2018. It is contended that the Regulatory
Committee has imposed a penalty of Rs.
One Lac upon the respondent nos. 6 and 7
for not providing the details asked for.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that on account of the above action initiated
the respondent nos. 6 and 7 have now
struck off the names of the petitioner nos. 2
and 3 from the school rolls and issued ante
dated Transfer Certificates on 23.03.2023.

7. A short counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the respondent no. 7 and
the factual controversy is sought to be
cleared by submitting that the controversy
has been blown out of proportions and the
petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have suffered
entirely on account of the recalcitrant
attitude of the petitioner no. 1 and his wife.
The Sibling Fee Rebate Scheme admittedly
is subject to certain terms and conditions. It
was clearly mentioned in the Scheme that
the benefit would be available only upon
timely deposit of the fee i.e. on or before
5th April, 5th July, 5th October and 5th
January. The fee for the first quarter of the
academic session 2022-23 beginning April
2022 was paid before 5th April 2022 and
petitioners were extended the benefit of the
Scheme. However, for the next quarter
beginning July 2022, the fee was got
deposited in two installments i.e. on
05.07.2022 and 08.07.2022. As total fee
was not deposited before 05.07.2022, the
sibling benefit was not extended to the
petitioners. In the absence of any rebate in
the fee, the total fee payable for second
quarter came to be Rs.78,078/- against
which only a sum of Rs.52,704/- was got
deposited and consequently, there was a
default of Rs.25,374/-. This default disentitled the petitioners to the sibling rebate
in the subsequent quarters. The cumulative
default worked out to Rs.76,122/- which
was being demanded.

8. The petitioner No. 1 instead of
depositing the balance amount, insisted for
fee waiver and benefit under the Sibling
Fee Relief Scheme. The petitioner No. 1
even began calling up one of the lady
teachers of the institution late in the night
and misbehaved with her. The said teacher
issued a legal notice to the petitioner
through her Advocate seeking written
apology from the petitioner No. 1. The
petitioner No. 1 also approached the police
authorities
against
the
Principal
for
demanding balance fee though no FIR was
registered. The parents of the petitioner
1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nos. 2 & 3 have also written offensive
letters marked to various dignitaries of the
State and also filed a complaint before the
Fee Regulatory Committee constituted
under the U.P. Self Finance Independent
Schools (Fee Regulations) Act, 2018. In
respect of the complaint lodged by the
petitioner
No.
1
before
the
Police
Authorities, the parties were called to
settle/discuss the issue on 21.3.2023, but
the complainant did not present himself and
only the representative of the respondent
No.7 was present. The representative of the
respondent No.7 consented to settle the
controversy by waiving the outstanding
balance of Rs.76,122/- due and payable
towards the account of student fee and
issue the transfer certificates. The transfer
certificates were not collected by the
parents and they continued to send their
wards to attend the institution.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.
6 and 7 has further submitted that there is a
deep resentment amongst the teaching staff
for not acting against the written complaint
of the lady teacher and have also conveyed
their strong displeasure at any attempt to
re-admit the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3.

10. A short rejoinder affidavit has
been filed by the petitioners essentially
reiterating the stand taken in the writ
petition.

11. In the aforesaid backdrop, this
Court has been called upon to consider the
relief prayed for in the writ petition.

12. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the record.

13. I find that the Sibling Fee Relief
under the Circular dated 5.8.2021 issued by
the respondent No. 7 is a benefit offered to
the parents whose two children are
studying in the institution subject to certain
riders and cannot be claimed as a matter of
right.

14. In the opinion of the Court, this
unfortunate situation has arisen on account
of misunderstanding of the terms of the
Sibling Fee Relief Scheme. According to
the petitioner No. 1, he was entitled to the
benefits under the Scheme as the institution
had accepted the fee for 2nd quarter in part.
Admittedly, the first deposit towards the
fee of the 2nd quarter was made on
5.7.2022
by
depositing
a
sum
of
Rs.25,000/- and the second deposit towards
the said quarter was made on 8.7.2022 for
Rs.27,704/-. The total amount deposited
was Rs.52,704/- which was the amount
required to be deposited towards the fee for
both petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 after adjusting
the Sibling Fee relief and 10% COVID
relief. However, the 2nd deposit was made
on 8.7.2022 and not on or before 5.7.2022
as provided under the Scheme and as such,
the respondent No. 7 was justified in not
extending the benefit of the Sibling Fee
Relief to the parents. No benefit of the
Scheme has been extended for the deposits
made in respect of the subsequent quarters.

15. During the course of the
arguments, considering the nature of the
dispute, this Court had required the parties
to amicably settle the dispute amongst
themselves. In furtherance thereof, the
respondent No. 7 has expressed its
intention to settle the dispute through an email addressed to Shri Tarun Agarwal,
learned counsel for the respondent. Shri
Tarun
Agarwal,
learned
counsel
for
respondent has placed the e-mail dated
15.1.2024 before this Court which is taken
on record. According to the e-mail, the
conditions imposed are:-
2 All. Satendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1051

1) School agrees to take both
admissions, however, two issues needs to
be addressed.

(a) CBSE registration has been
closed on the portal.

(b) Attendance is drastically
short. The children be enrolled for new
session 2024-25 as only four weeks of the
current session are left before final exams.

2) The parents to submit an
unconditional written apology addressed to
the Faculty and Management of the school
for their past behaviour and conduct and
ensure good conduct in future.

3) The parents shall pay the
waived fee along with future fee.

4) The parents shall withdraw
their complaint filed by them under the
U.P. Self Financed Independent Schools
(Fee
Regulation)
Act,
2018
with
information to the Appellate Authority
before applying for admission.

16. Shri Shesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners is aggreable to
the aforesaid terms, however, has expressed
some reservations to condition No. 2 and
submits that the entire fault cannot be
attributed to the parents alone and the
conduct of the respondents has been
equally not above board. He submits that
the apology should be mutual from both
sides. He further submits that the petitioner
No. 2 and 3 may be taken back on the Rolls
of the school for the academic session
2023-2024 by relaxing the requirement of
attendance so that the valuable year may be
saved.
The
School
Authorities
have
permitted the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to
attend their respective classes upto August,
2023. He further undertakes to deposit the
balance fee and future fee.

17. Shri Tarun Agarwal, learned
counsel for the respondent No. 7 has
vehemently opposed the said prayer and
submits that the petitioners under no
circumstances can be permitted for the
session 2023-2024 inasmuch as they have not
studied in the said session nor any fee has
been accepted from them as the Transfer
Certificate had already been issued to them in
March, 2023.

18. I have given a thoughtful
consideration to the respective submissions of
the learned counsels.

19. From the record, I find that the
Transfer Certificates were issued to the
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on 23.3.2023. Though
the names of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were
struck off from the Rolls of the school, their
ID cards withdrawn. Yet, the petitioner No. 2
and 3 continued to be sent to the school by
the parents. The final report card for their
respective classes were handed over in
March, 2023 and they were not promoted to
the next higher class. The School Authorities
did not prevent them from attending school
presumably on the ground that the enquiry by
the District Fee Regulatory Authority was
underway at the relevant time. The School
Authorities did not mark the attendance nor
accepted any fee from the petitioners. I also
find that the session 2023-2024 is virtually on
the last leg with only 04 weeks remaining
whereafter the final exams are scheduled to
take place. In view of above facts, this Court
is constrained to permit the petitioner Nos. 2
and 3 to be re-admitted in the current session.

20. In the opinion of the Court, ends of
justice shall stand sub served if the writ
petition is disposed of in the following
terms:-

21. The petitioner No. 1 shall
withdraw all proceedings initiated against
the School Authorities which include the
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint filed by him under the U.P. Self
Financed
Independent
Schools
(Fee
Regulation) Act, 2018, Complaint before
the Police Authorities as also Complaint on
the IGRS portal against the institution and
its teaching staff and submit an undertaking
that such conduct shall not be repeated in
future. The petitioner No. 1 shall also
deposit the defaulted fee (waived fee) as
also the future fee as and when the same
shall falls due. The respondent No. 7 in
turn will withdraw the defamation case and
/ or any other cases instituted against the
parents of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The
respondent No. 7 shall withdraw the
transfer certificates dated 23.3.2023 accept
the fee in respect of the petitioner Nos. 2
and 3, restore their names on the school
rolls and readmit them for the academic
session 2024-2025.

22. Ordered accordingly. No order as
to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1052
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ - C No. 1002256 of 2013

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sri Sudama Prasad Tiwari ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Ashish Mishra

Civil Law Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -
Sections 2(e), 14 - Daily Wage Employee
- Entitlement to Gratuity - Government
Order - Article 226 - The St. of Uttar Pradesh
challenged the order dated 27.06.2012 by the
Controlling Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity
Act,
1972,
granting
gratuity
to
respondent No. 1, Sudama Prasad Tiwari, a
daily wage employee (Tindail) in the Irrigation
Department from 02.01.1984 to 08.11.2004,
and later as a Work Supervisor (Karya
Paryavekshak) until retirement on 31.07.2009.
The respondent claimed gratuity for 25 years, 6
months, and 29 days of continuous service. The
St. argued that daily wagers are not entitled to
gratuity under Civil Service Regulations and a
Government Order dated 28.07.2006, and that
the respondent's regularized service (20042009) was less than five years, disqualifying
him. Held: The respondent, as a daily wage
employee,
fell
within
the
definition
of
"employee" under Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act,
as he was not covered by any other gratuityproviding law or rules. Section 14 of the Act
overrides
inconsistent
enactments
or
government
orders,
rendering
the
2006
Government Order inapplicable. The respondent
proved continuous service from 1984 to 2009,
satisfying the Act's requirements. The St.'s claim
of regularization was not substantiated before
the Controlling Authority, and even if true, the
daily wage period (1984-2004) qualified for
gratuity. The court upheld the Controlling
Authority's order, finding no infirmity, but
modified it to award simple interest instead of
compound interest on the gratuity amount from
the due date until payment.

The petition was dismisse

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

1. Heard Shri S.K. Khare, learned
Standing Counsel for the State/petitioners.
No one has appeared on behalf of the
respondent no. 1 and perused the material
available on record.

2. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed
the present writ petition being aggrieved by
the judgment dated 27.06.2012 passed by
the
Controlling
Authority
under
the