# Vidya Dhar Pandey v. Lucknow University, Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 44
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-08
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 1788 of 2015
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vidya-dhar-pandey-v-lucknow-university-lucknow-ors-43456
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act-1921Section 16 (I), 16 E (ii)-appointment of
Assistant
Teacher-against
substantive
vacancy-on retirement of regular teachersappointment
by
management
not
to
continue more than 6 months or end of
academic
session-any
appointment-in
contravention of Section 16 (i)-held-voidas per law laid down by Division BenchAbhishek
Tripathi
case-direction
for
financial approval can not be givenpetition dismissed.
Held: Para-7
Though under Section 16-E of the
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the
Committee of Management has the
power to make an appointment but in
exercise
of
the
said
power,
an
appointment can only be made against a
temporary vacancy caused by the grant
of leave to an incumbent for a period not
exceeding six months, or in the case of

## Text

44
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as a muster-roll or work-charge employee
cannot be counted for the purposes of
calculating the qualifying service for
pension, nevertheless, he is entitled to be
considered
for
the
benefit
of
the
provisions contained in Regulation 468 of
the Civil Service Regulations. The matter
is remanded back to the competent
authority for taking a fresh decision in
terms
of
the
observations
made
hereinabove within a period of six weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced before him. Consequences as
regards payment of pension and other
post-retirement benefits shall follow as
per rules based on the decision so taken.
7. It is open for the petitioner to claim
interest on the amount of pension payable if
the delay is on account of the opposite
parties by approaching the appropriate
forum as and when the cause of action
arises.
8. Considering the fact that such
petitions are coming up before this Court
everyday, let a copy of this judgment and
order be sent to the Chief Secretary, U.P.
and Principal Secretary, Karmik as also to
the Principal Secretary, Finance for
ensuring compliance of the said provision
at the time of calculation of qualifying
service of government servants who are
due to retire or have retired so that they
may not be compelled to approach this
Court unnecessarily.
9. This writ petition is disposed of in
the above terms.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
Service Single No. 1788 of 2015
Vidya Dhar Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Lucknow University, Lucknow & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Shameem Khan
Counsel for the Respondents:
Shashi Prakash Singh
Constitution of India, Art.-226-forfeiture of
salary-during suspension period-without
show cause notice-without opportunity to
explain-held-illegal-in view of O.P. Gupta
case-separate show cause notice is must
order quashed-with direction to proceed a
fresh-after show cause notice.
Held: Para-8
As no show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner therefore, the impugned order
to this extent is set aside and liberty is
given to the concerned authority to
proceed afresh if forfeiture of remaining
salary of the suspension of petitioner is
proposed by issuing a show cause notice
and
thereafter
take
an
appropriate
decision in accordance with law.
Case Law discussed:
(1987) 4 SCC 328.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
2. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh has put
in appearance on behalf of the Lucknow
University.
3.
The petitioner has challenged the
order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Registrar,
Lucknow University by which the salary for
the period of suspension of the petitioner has
been forfeited by way of punishment.
1 All. Vidya Dhar Pandey Vs. Lucknow University, Lucknow & Ors.
45
4. Inspite of the order dated
20.04.2015 no counter affidavit has been
filed by the University, therefore, the facts
stated in the writ petition
remain
unrebutted.
5. The contention of the petitioner is
that merely on the direction of the Vice
Chancellor
the
impugned
order
of
forfeiture of salary for the period of
suspension has been passed without
issuing any show cause notice.
6. A perusal of the impugned order
reveals that a charge sheet was issued to
the petitioner and he was placed under
suspension on 08.11.2013. According to
the petitioner he had filed reply to the
charge sheet. The impugned order shows
that the final decision was taken by the
Vice Chancellor in the matter awarding an
adverse entry for the alleged misconduct
with a direction to the concerned authority
to forfeit the salary of the petitioner for
the suspension period.
7. The legal position is very well
settled by the decision of the Supreme
Court reported in (1987) 4 SCC 328 (O.P.
Gupta vs. Union of India & others) that
forfeiture of remaining salary for the
period of suspension requires issuance of
separate
show
cause
notice
under
intimation as the matter of forfeiture of
salary has financial implications. The
petitioner needs to be confronted as to
why the financial burden be not imposed
upon him.
8. As no show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner therefore, the
impugned order to this extent is set aside
and liberty is given to the concerned
authority to proceed afresh if forfeiture of
remaining salary of the suspension of
petitioner is proposed by issuing a show
cause notice and thereafter take an
appropriate decision in accordance with
law.
9. The writ petition is disposed of in
the aforesaid terms
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Writ-A No. 2184 of 2016
Smt. Sangeeta Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Rajesh Kumar Singh Kaushi
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
U.P. Intermediate Education Act-1921Section 16 (I), 16 E (ii)-appointment of
Assistant
Teacher-against
substantive
vacancy-on retirement of regular teachersappointment
by
management
not
to
continue more than 6 months or end of
academic
session-any
appointment-in
contravention of Section 16 (i)-held-voidas per law laid down by Division BenchAbhishek
Tripathi
case-direction
for
financial approval can not be givenpetition dismissed.
Held: Para-7
Though under Section 16-E of the
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the
Committee of Management has the
power to make an appointment but in
exercise
of
the
said
power,
an
appointment can only be made against a
temporary vacancy caused by the grant
of leave to an incumbent for a period not
exceeding six months, or in the case of