# Smt. Nirmal Rani v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39575
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-nirmal-rani-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39575
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
68
Orders (Revised Edition), 1981 Chapter 136
at particular page 482- reproduced- OM No.
8825/II-297-39 dated June 03, 1940- Vol. IIdoes not support the petitioner's case. No
Statute/Ordinance or Regulation or any other
Government Order was either filed in the case
of Vishambhar Singh (supra) or any of it is
filed in the present case. There is no material
to show that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan claims
its "Prathama" examination equivalent to
High School.

14. In view of the above I find no
manifest error apparent on the face of record
calling for interference with the decision
taken by the Respondents vide impugned
resolution dated 28th October 1994 and
consequently order dated 19th November
1994. Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed.

15. In the facts of the case particularly
when Petitioners who claim to be promoted,
though under mistake of fact, are denied relief
and they are persons getting meagre salaries
as Parchi Vitrak in Sugar Cane Societies, I
direct that parties shall bear their own costs.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +216·%/( $.<2* -
7+( +216·%/( $.<2* -

&LYLO PLVF ZULW SHWLWLRQHU QR RI

6PW 1LUPDO 5DQL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQW
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL +1 7ULSDWKL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

83
+LJK
6FKRRO
DQG
,QWHUPHGLDWH
(GXFDWLRQ $FW UHDGZLWK 83 +LJK VFKRRO DQG
,QWHUPHGLDWH &ROOHJHV SD\PHQW RI 6DODULHV
RI 7HDFKHUV DQG RWKHU (PSOR\HHV $FW
± 5HPRYDO RI 7HDFKHUV RQ JURXQG RI DEVHQFH
RI
UHTXLVLWH
WUDLQLQJ
TXDOLILFDWLRQ
7HUPLQDWLRQ
RUGHU
SDVVHG LQ YLRODWLRQ RI
SULQFLSOHV
RI
QDWXUDO
MXVWLFH
DQG
QRQ
±
DSSOLFDWLRQ PLQG ±+HQFH VHW DVLGH
+HOG
,Q
YLHZ
RI
WKH
XQUHEXWWHG
VWDWHPHQWV
FRQWDLQHG
LQ
WKH
ZULW
SHWLWLRQ
WKDW
WHUPLQDWLRQ
RUGHU
KDV
EHHQ
SDVVHG
LQ
YLRODWLRQ RI WKH SULQFLSOHV RI QDWXUDO MXVWLFH
WKDW VKH ZDV JLYHQ QR FKDUJHVKHHW WKDW QR
GLVFLSOLQDU\
HQTXLU\
ZDV
KHOG
DV
FRQWHPSODWHG
XQGHU
5HJXODWLRQV
IUDPHG
XQGHU WKH 83 KLJK 6FKRRO DQG ,QWHUPHGLDWH
(GXFDWLRQ
$FW
DQG
WKDW
WKH
HPSOR\HU
&RPPLWWHH
RI
0DQDJHPHQW
RI
WKH
,QVWLWXWLRQ KDG WDNHQ QR GHFLVLRQ RQ LWV
RZQ DQG WKDW VKH ZDV GLUHFWHG WR EH UHOLYHG
XQGHU WKH GLFWDWHV RI WKH 'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU
RI 6FKRROV ZLWKRXW JLYLQJ RSSRUWXQLW\ DV
FRQWHPSODWHG
XQGHU
ODZ
WKH
LPSXJQHG
RUGHUV DUH YLWLDWHG LQ ODZ DQG FDQQRW EH
VXVWDLQHG SDUD

By the Court

1. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher in a recognized Junior High School,
which was upgraded to High School and
Intermediate level. Detailed facts have been
mentioned in the Writ Petition. Institution
(Kunwar Ranjit Singh Inter College, Nagariya
Parikshit, Air Force, Bareilly) was getting
grant-in-aid and the provisions of U.P. High
Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment
of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees)
Act, 1971 are applicable to it.

2. Petitioner received her salary when the
College came on grant-in aid list in 1994 and
she was paid until impugned order dated 9th
August 1995 (Annexure-IV to the Writ
Petition) and consequential order dated 31st
August 1995 (Annexure-XI to the Writ
Petition) were passed.

3. Petitioner has passed High School and
Intermediate Examinations of U.P. Board,
1ALL] Smt. Nirmal Rani V. State of U.P. and others 69
 Allahabad'.
She
also
passed
'Madhyama' (Intermediate level), Sahaitya
Ratna (B.A. Level) as well as Shiksha
Visharad Examinations, (said to be equivalent
to B.Ed.) Teaching Training Course from
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan,
Allahabad.
Petitioner has filed certain documents (as
Annexure-I, II and III to the Writ Petition) to
show that 'Shiksha Visharad' of Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan is recognized as equivalent
to B.Ed/Trained Teacher.

4. It appear that some complaints were
made and a preliminary enquiry was held by
the District Inspector of Schools, who passed
impugned order dated 09th August 1995
(Annexure-IV to the Writ Petition). District
Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, under the
impugned order informed the Institution that
salary of the Petitioner, apart from other three
persons, shall not be sanctioned under the
Payment of Salaries Act,1971 on the ground
that these persons did not possess requisite
training qualification.

5. Petitioner made representation dated
30th May1995 (Annexure -VI to the Writ
Petition) and 29th August 1995 (Annexure VI
to the Writ Petition), to the manager of the
Institution. She sent copies to the concerned
authorities also Petitioner thereafter made
representation dated 02nd November 1995 to
the
District
Inspector
of
School
and
representation dated 15th November 1995
(Annexure-X to the writ Petition) to the
Director of Education (Secondary).

6. Petitioner has filed copies of interim
order dated 31stAugust 1995 passed in the
Writ Petition nos. 1902 of 1995 and 1997of
1995 filed by other two teachers, who were
also covered under the same impugned orders
.

7. Respondent nos. 2 and 5 are
represented through learned Standing Counsel
and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are represented
by Shri Rajesh Tripathi, Advocate, who has
filed today a Counter Affidavit (after serving
a copy on the learned counsel for the
petitioner on 21st September 1998).

8. The said Counter Affidavit supports
the case of the Petitioner, which shows that
management has no grievance if Petitioner is
allowed to continue in service in the
Institution.

9. On the other hand no Counter
Affidavit has been filed by Respondent Nos.
1,2 and 3 to controvert the facts stated in the
Writ Petition.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that Petitioner was taken by
surprise inasmuch as she was never apprised
of the complaint against her; she was never
given notice regarding filing of alleged forged
certificates, she was given no notice nor
afforded opportunity and lastly no enquiry
was held by the competent authority, namelythe
Committee
of Management of the
Institution
before
the
impugned
order
terminating her services has been issued.

11. In Paragraph 24(a) of the petition it is
stated, ".... In the year 1994 Respondent no. 2
without following the principles of natural
justice without giving opportunity of hearing
or to show cause suddenly sent a letter to the
Manager of the institution who is highly
annoyed with the petitioner best cause known
to him and withdrew the financial sanction
granted in respect of substantive appointment
of the petitioner on the post of Assistant
Teacher in the institution."

12. Again in Paragraph 24(d) it is stated
that, "That the Manager of the institution
without any resolution of the Committee of
Management without any authority in law
passed the impugned order dated 9.8.1995 and
relieved the petitioner from the service of the
institution and without passing any clear of
termination against the petitioner relieved her.
Neither the petitioner has been removed from
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
70
service by the appointing authority nor the
appointing authority authorised the Manager
of the institution to relieve the petitioner from
the post of Assistant Teacher, so the order
dated 21.08.1995 passed by the manager of
the
institution
is
void
being
without
jurisdiction."

13. Petitioner has categorically stated in
Paragraph 24(e) that she did not conceal 'fact'
regarding
her
qualification
or
caused
'misrepresentation'.

14. In the representations filed by the
Petitioner it was also contended that she is
entitled for exemption in view of length of
service (more than 10 years) and even if
training degree is ignored, Petitioner is
eligible and should be treated at par with any
other Assistant Teacher possessing training
degree/certificate.

15. The Respondents have not filed
relevant
document
to
indicate
whether
Petitioner was apprised of the charges in
respect of which enquiry was being held. In
absence of due notice of the allegations
against her, services of petitioner could not
have been terminated without holding enquiry
and affording opportunity to the petitioner as
contemplated under law.

16. The enquiry held by District
Inspector of Schools under Payment of
Salaries Act, 1971 can, at best, be said to be a
preliminary enquiry. If Petitioner is not guilty
of committing fraud or misrepresentation, and
she has not been given opportunity to defend,
the action of terminating services on the part
of the concerned Respondent cannot be
justified. The authorities ought to have
considered the relevant issue on merit in the
light of the contention of the Petitioner
(whether she had acquired enough teaching
experience which would have entitled her to
seek exemption of required training degree.)
As the record stands today, there is complete
non-application of mind to the said issue
raised by the Petitioner.

17. Averments made by the Petitioner in
the Writ Petition show that she was given no
notice and that she has not been removed by
the
competent
authority,
namely,
the
Committee of Management after holding
enquiry as contemplated under law. It is also
not disputed by any of the Respondents.

18. In view of the unrebutted statements
contained in the Writ Petition that termination
order has been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice, that she was
given no charge-sheet, that no disciplinary
enquiry was held as contemplated under
Regulations framed under the U.P. High
School and Intermediate Education Act and
that the employer (Committee of Management
of the Institution) had taken no decision on its
own and that she was directed to be relieved
under the dictates of the District Inspector of
Schools
without
giving
opportunity
as
contemplated under law, 'the impugned
orders are vitiated in law and cannot be
sustained.

19. Accordingly, I issue a writ of certiorari
quashing the impugned orders dated 09th
August 1995 (Annexure-IV to the Writ
Petition) and 21st August 1995 (Annexure-X
to the Writ Petition). A writ of mandamus is
also issued directing Respondents to reinstate
the
Petitioner
treating
her
in
services
continuously with effect from 08th August
1995
all
purposes
including
seniority,
pension, etc.. Petitioner will be paid salary in
future by giving benefit of and accounting for
the annual increments, all allowances perks
etc., and she will be paid future salary month
by month along with other staff of the college.
It is further directed that concerned authorities
shall decide the question of payment of
arrears of salary for the period from August
1995 till the date of joining after taking in to
account whether Petitioner has been willing to
work and that she was not gainfully employed
1ALL] Abhai Kumar Rai V. State of U.P. and others 71
elsewhere including such other mitigating
Circumstances as may be relevant under law.
In case Petitioner was not gainfully employed
and willing to work, she shall be paid full
back wages with 12% per annum simple
interest from the date of salary being due till
the date of actual payment of the dues.

20. Writ Petition stands allowed.

No order as to costs.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 3$/2. %$68 -
7+( +21·%/( 3$/2. %$68 -
7+( +21·%/( 6.-$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 6.-$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 12 RI

$EKDL .XPDU 5DL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK 3ULQFLSDO 6HFUHWDU\
,UULJDWLRQ
83
/XFNQRZ
DQG
RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 6. &KDXEH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

/DQG DFTXLVLWLRQ $FW 6V DQG 1RWLILFDWLRQ
XV XVHG LQ DFTXLULQJ SHWLWLRQHU¶V
DJULFXOWXUDO
ODQGFRPSHQVDWLRQ
QRW
SDLG
LQVSLWH
RI
&RXUW¶V
GLUHFWLRQV
LQ
HDUOLHU
SHWLWLRQ
RQ
WHFKQLFDO
JURXQG
WKDW
6
GHFODUDWLRQ LV QRW PDGH &RXUW UHGLUHFWHG
UHVSRQGHQWV
WR
SD\
FRPSHQVDWLRQ
WR
SHWLWLRQHU WRJHWKHU ZLWK VSHFLDO FRVWV RI
 ZLWK WZR PRQWKV
+HOG
7KLV &RXUW VKDOO QRW HQWHUWDLQ VXFK D GHIHQFH
EHFDXVH LW DPRXQWV WR IORXWLQJ RI ODZ RQO\ RQ
D
WHFKQLFDO
SOHD
&RQWULEXWLRQ
IURP
WKH
GHSDUWPHQW
FRQFHUQHG
KDYLQJ
QRW
EHHQ
PDGH WR WKH *RYHUQPHQW FDQQRW EH DFFHSWHG
DV D YDOLG UHDVRQ IRU QRQSD\PHQW RI WKH
FRPSHQVDWLRQ ZKHQ WKH SRRU FXOWLYDWRU LQ
IDFW VWDQGV GLYHVWHG RI KLV ODQG 7KH SXUSRVH
RI DFTXLVLWLRQ PD\ EH RQH RU WKH RWKHU VR
ORQJ DV WKH ODQG RZQHU LV QRW WKURZQ RXW RI
SRVVHVVLRQ
DOO
WHFKQLFDOLWLHV
PD\
EH
H[DPLQHG
%XW ZKHQ KH DFWXDOO\ VWDQGV
GLVSRVVHVVHG
IURP
WKH
ODQG
WKH
6WDWH
*RYHUQPHQW LV ERXQG WR FRPSHQVDWH VXFK
RXVWHG SHUVRQV
7KLV ZULW SHWLWLRQ FRQVHTXHQWO\ VXFFHHGV DQG
LV
DOORZHG
ZLWK
VSHFLDO
FRVW
ZKLFK
LV
DVVHVVHG DW 5V 3DUD DQG

By the Court

1. It is strange case where an innocent
citizen living in interior of an under developed
village is being deprived of his agricultural
land on the ground of establishing an
irrigation canal but compensation has not
been paid to him since the year 1981.
Petitioner has to rush up to this court for
second time even though the first order dated
29.11.199 directed the payment of the
compensation to be made expeditiously vide
orders in writ petition no.37926 of 1996
quoted in paragraph 3 of the instant writ
petition. When this writ petition was filed
before this court a counter affidavit was called
because the pleadings were on the part of an
helpless innocent citizen. While calling the
counter affidavit therefore interim mandamus
was also issued which was to the following
effect :

2. "An interim mandamus is hereby
issued to the respondents to grant the
compensation to the petitioner within one
month
from
today
and
release
the
compensation amount to the petitioner within
2 weeks or show cause by filing a counter
affidavit why the petitioner be not paid the
compensation and the aforesaid relief be not
finally granted."

3. In response two counter affidavits
have been filed. One has been sworn by Sri
Sandeep Kumar Sharma who is presently
posted as Additional District Magistrate, Sant
Ravi Das Nagar. Sri Indra Deo Prasad