# Virendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 949
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-08
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 52451 of 2009
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46716
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law-Petitioner duly appointed in
March' 2006 and his salary withheld from
March,2006
without
specifying
any
reason-later
impugned
order
passed
stating
that
incumbent
who
made
appointment
had
undergone
some
disciplinary proceeding for irregularity
committed in appointment of class III and
IV employees-sanctioned post and due
advertisement not denied-impugned order
illegal.

W.P. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1.Writ-A No. 66584 of 2008 (Chandra Deo Singh
& ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.)

2.Writ-A No.3730 of 2009 (Ajai Raj Singh & ors.
Vs St. of U.P. & ors.)

## Text

1 All. Virendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
949
petitioner in continuation of his original
appointment,
made
way
back
on
29.10.1991, in pursuance whereto he had
joined on 01.11.1991. The disassociation of
the petitioner between 18.01.1992 until the
petitioner's reinstatement in service on
02.07.2010 has to be treated as effaced.

21. This being the effect of the
Tribunal's order and the consequential
order of reinstatement, the petitioner would
certainly be entitled to the benefit of the
Government
Order
dated
01.02.2000,
reckoning his appointment as an untrained
teacher under the Dying-in-Harness Rules
in terms of the order dated 29.10.1991. The
petitioner would be entitled to a trained
teacher's pay scale on the basis of his
appointment dated 29.10.1991, counting
the period of five years with effect from the
petitioner's joining duties on 01.11.1991.

22. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and allowed with costs. The
impugned order dated 05.07.2017 passed
by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur
(Annexure no.14 to the writ petition) is
hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to
the respondents to forthwith redetermine all
emoluments payable to the petitioner,
including salary, pension, Provident Fund
and other entitlements, on the basis that the
petitioner is entitled to the trained teacher's
pay scale on completion of five years
service in terms of the Government Order
dated 01.02.2000, reckoned with effect
from the petitioner's appointment, dated
29.10.1991, pursuant whereto he joined on
01.11.1991. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Jaunpur and the Accounts Officer in the
office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Jaunpur are ordered to redetermine the
entire emoluments payable to the petitioner
within two months of the date of receipt of
a copy of this order and to pay all arrears
on account of this revision within a period
of two months, thereafter.
----------
(2021)01ILR A949
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Writ-A No. 52451 of 2009

Virendra Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sunil Kumar Srivastava,
Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, Ms.Vijeta
Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law-Petitioner duly appointed in
March' 2006 and his salary withheld from
March,2006
without
specifying
any
reason-later
impugned
order
passed
stating
that
incumbent
who
made
appointment
had
undergone
some
disciplinary proceeding for irregularity
committed in appointment of class III and
IV employees-sanctioned post and due
advertisement not denied-impugned order
illegal.

W.P. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1.Writ-A No. 66584 of 2008 (Chandra Deo Singh
& ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.)

2.Writ-A No.3730 of 2009 (Ajai Raj Singh & ors.
Vs St. of U.P. & ors.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. The instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed, inter-alia, praying for the
following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure No.10) to the
writ petition passed by Director Higher
Education U.P. Lucknow, respondent no.2.

ii) Issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to pay the salary to petitioner
with arrears w.e.f. 01.03.2006 and month to
month as and when falls due in accordance
with law.

iii) Issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to interfere in peaceful
functioning as Class IV employee (peon).

2. The facts, in brief, are that the State
Government vide a Government Order
dated 14th September, 2005 created 145
posts of Class-III and Class-IV in the
Government
Degree/
Post
Graduate
Colleges. Four posts each in the category of
Lab Attendant and Lab Assistant were
created in the College. The Director of
Education
(Higher),
U.P.,
Allahabad
(hereinafter referred to as the "Director")
vide order dated 21st November, 2005
directed
the
Principal
of
all
the
Government Degree Colleges to initiate the
recruitment process for filling up the
vacancies of Class-III and Class-IV posts in
their colleges. It is stated that It is claimed
that the Committee of Management of the
College issued an advertisement was
published in daily newspaper "Dainik
Jagran" on 17.12.2005 inviting vacancy of
four posts in the category of Lab Attendant
(Class IV) in Goswami Tulsi Das Rajkiya
Snatakottar
Mahavidyalaya
Karvi,
Chittrakoot (hereinafter referred to as the
"Institution") calling applications from the
eligible candidates against the four posts of
Lab Attendant (Class-IV posts). The
petitioner made application in pursuance of
the said advertisement and they were found
suitable by the Selection Committee and,
accordingly, the Principal of the Institution
issued appointment letters in favour of the
petitioner on 28th February, 2006, in
pursuance thereof the petitioner joined on
1st March, 2006 on the post of Peon and
since then he is working in the Institution.
It is alleged that despite the fact that the
petitioner has been continuously working
and discharging his duties, the payment of
salary was withheld from March, 2006
without specifying any reason. Despite
repeated representations having been filed
by the petitioner before the respondentauthorities, the payment of salary of the
petitioner continued to be withheld.

3. Aggrieved with the said action of
the respondent-authorities, the petitioner
filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.57104 of
2008 (Virendra Kumar Singh vs. State of
U.P. and others) before this Court and vide
order dated 12.11.2008, the writ petition
has been disposed off. The order dated
12.11.2008 is quoted below:

"Contention of petitioner that he has
been validly appointed, but no step is being
undertaken for ensuring his remuneration
since February, 2006.

Grievance raised by the petitioner can
be very well looked into, examined and
remedied by Director of Higher Education,
U.P. Allahabad as such liberty is given to
petitioner to represent his claim before the
aforesaid authority within three weeks from
today alongwith certified copy of this order.
In this event of any such representation
being made, the same shall be looked into,
considered and appropriate decision be
1 All. Virendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
951
taken, in accordance with law, within next
eight weeks, and the decision so taken shall
be communicated to the petitioner.

In terms of above observation, present
writ petition is disposed of."

4. In compliance of the above order of
this Court, the Director vide impugned
order dated 22.06.2009 has rejected the
claim of the petitioner, inter-alia, on the
ground that the incumbent, who had made
appointment of the petitioner, had under
gone some disciplinary proceeding, which
is said to have been taken against him for
irregularity committed in the appointment
of Class III & IV employees and since there
are
procedural
irregularities
in
the
appointment
of
the
petitioner
and,
accordingly,
the
appointment
of
the
petitioner has been declared illegal.

5. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner has been
continuously working and discharging his
duties
on
the
post
of
peon
w.e.f.
28.02.2006, but the payment of salary of
the petitioner was withheld from March,
2006 without specifying any reason.
Further submission is that no order has
been passed by the respondents either
stopping the salary of the petitioner or
canceling his appointment in any manner,
whatsoever, therefore, in absence of any
order, the action of the respondents in
abruptly stopping the salary of the
petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and
unjustified. Further submission is that
under the relevant Rules, the process of
selection has been undertaken by the
competent authority in pursuance of the
relevant government order creating the
additional post in the Institution. Thus,
there
existed
no
cogent
reason
for
withholding the salary of the petitioner.
Further submission is that in the impugned
order, there is nothing about any illegality
or irregularity in the appointment of the
petitioner and in view thereof, there is no
justification to refuse the claim of the
petitioner as has been done by the
impugned order, hence, the impugned order
is wholly illegal and erroneous. Further
submission is that in the impugned order,
the Director has not pointed out any
procedural irregularity but has referred the
punishment awarded to Sri Surya Bali
Dwivedi, the then officiating Principal of
the College, which has no relation with the
appointment of the petitioner made against
duly sanctioned and vacant Class-IV posts.
Further the impugned order does not
disclose
any
illegality,
infirmity
or
irregularity in the selection. Moreover, the
version of the petitioner has not been
considered. The State Government itself
has taken disciplinary action against the
then
Director,
who
has
passed
the
impugned order. Submission further is that
in one of the similar matters in Writ-A No.
66584 of 2008 (Chandra Deo Singh and
others v. State of U.P. and others), decided
on 09th September, 2014 and Writ-A
No.3730 of 2009 (Ajai Raj Singh and
others vs. State of U.P. and others) decided
on 03.04.2015, this Court has set aside the
order of the Director and has remanded the
matter back for reconsideration.

6. I have heard Ms. Vijeta Kushwaha,
holding brief of Sri S.K. Chadraul, learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State and perused the
material available on record.

7. From the order of the Director, it
appears that the appointment of the
petitioner was made during the tenure of
officiating
Principal
Sri
Surya
Bali
Dwivedi, against whom a disciplinary
action was taken. In the order, it has not
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been denied that there were sanctioned
posts and they were advertised in the
widely
circulated
newspaper
"Dainik
Jagran". The fact that the posts were
sanctioned and the petitioner possessed the
essential
qualification,
has
not
been
adverted to by the Director.

8. In view of above observations, I am
of the opinion that the order of the Director
dated 22nd June, 2009, as is impugned in the
present writ petition, is unsustainable and it is
hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the
Director to pass a fresh order after affording
opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is
at liberty to file a fresh representation along
with supporting documents within three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. The Director shall consider the
representation and the material filed by the
petitioner and pass the appropriate order in
accordance with law expeditiously.

9. Accordingly, the writ petitions is
allowed. However, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs.
----------
(2021)01ILR A952
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Writ-A No. 64258 of 2008

Smt. Neelam Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.N. Singh, Sri Manish Yadav, Sri
Prashant Kumar Tripathi, Sri Rajeev Misra,
Sri Virendra Prakash
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri A.K. Mishra, Ms. Archana
Singh, Sri Vipin Sinha

Civil Law-Husband of Petitioner no.1 was
a permanent employee of SBI-died during
his service-application for compassionate
appointment
made-rejected
stating
presently no scheme for appointment on
dying in harness exist-only scheme for
payment
of
ex-gratia-2005
scheme
provides only for ex-gratia paymentsuperseded by scheme of 2014 which
revived
the
scheme
providing
compassionate
appointment-mandamus
issued
to
consider
claim
for
compassionate appointment.

W.P. disposed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Canara Bank Vs M. Mahesh Kumar, arising out
of Civil Appeal No.260 of 2008

2. Sushma Gosain & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
(1989) 4 SCC 468

3. Canara Bank Vs M. Mahesh Kumar, arising out
of Civil Appeal No.260 of 2008

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ
of mandamus directing the respondent nos.
2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner no.2 on a
suitable post in Class-III or Class-IV.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present
case, as noticed by this Court, are that the
husband of the petitioner no.1, namely, late
Chandra Bhushan Singh was a permanent
employee of State Bank of India, who was
posted as Messenger in Civil Lines Branch,
Allahabad.
On
06.12.2007,
Chandra
Bhushan died during his service and left
behind him two sons, namely, Abhishek