Secondary Education

जिन याचिकाकर्ताओं के नियमितीकरण का मामला है विचाराधीन।उनको वेतन का भुगतान

संजय सिंह व अन्य के मामले में (सुप्रा) भी लागू होगा
जिन याचिकाकर्ताओं के नियमितीकरण का मामला है
विचाराधीन।
के मामले में फैसले के अनुपात को देखते हुए प्रथम दृष्टया
संजय सिंह व अन्य। (सुप्रा) और साथ ही स्पष्टीकरण
दिनेश सिंह (उपरोक्त) के मामले में दर्ज, कोई कारण नहीं है
लंबित याचिकाकर्ताओं को वेतन का भुगतान क्यों नहीं किया जाना चाहिए
धारा 33सी के तहत या तो उनके आवेदन पर विचार
अधिनियम के 33 जी, जैसा भी मामला हो।
इस प्रकार, एक अंतरिम उपाय के रूप में, उत्तरदाताओं को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए निर्देशित किया जाता है
याचिकाकर्ताओं को मासिक आधार पर वेतन का भुगतान।
बकाया वेतन, जिसका भुगतान नहीं किया गया है, का भुगतान किया जाएगा
याचिकाकर्ताओं को आज से दो महीने के भीतर
विद्वान स्थायी अधिवक्ता भीतर प्रतिशपथ पत्र दाखिल कर सकते हैं
चार सप्ताह।
उसके बाद दो सप्ताह के भीतर प्रत्युत्तर हलफनामा दायर किया जाएगा।
21.2.2023 को सूची।
आदेश दिनांक:- 10.1.2023
निशांत

Court No. – 17
Case :- WRIT – A No. – 7931 of 2022
Petitioner :- Raghvendra Prasad Pandey And 10 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And 8
Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsha Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
CONNECTED WITH
Writ – A No.5281 of 2022, Writ – A No.5288 of 2022, Writ – A No.7932 of
2022, Writ – A No.7933 of 2022, Writ – A No.7934 of 2022 & Writ – A
No.7935 of 2022.
Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.
Harsha Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Kuldeep
Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by
Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State and Shri R.K.S. Suryavanshi, learned
counsel appearing for U.P. Secondary Education Services
Selection Board.
Present petitions have been filed by the petitioners who claim to
be appointed by virtue of powers conferred under Section 18 of
the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act,
1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and claim that by
virtue of the provisions incorporated under Section 33C and
33G of the Act, they were entitled for consideration for
regularization. Although the relief in that regard has been
prayed in Prayer No.1, it is stated that subsequently, the
petitioners had given a statement of not pressing the relief as
claimed in Prayer No.1.
Since the issues raised in the writ petitions are common, the
interim prayers are being decided by means of this common
order.
For the sake of brevity, the facts as disclosed in Writ – A
No.7931 of 2022 are being considered.
The petitioners – who are 11 in number – claim to have been
appointed by virtue of Section 18 on various dates but prior to

  1. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by
    filing writ petitions and in the case of some of the petitioners,
    orders were passed directing for consideration of their claim for
    regularization under Section 33G of the Act. It is common
    ground that no orders have been passed in respect of the
    petitioners pertaining to their claim for regularization. It is also
    informed that in some of the cases, the process was initiated but
    has not been concluded.
    The present writ petition is basically challenging the action of
    the respondent no.4 whereby salary of the petitioners have been
    stopped and they have not been paid salary for the months June,
    July, August, September, October and November, 2022 mainly
    on the ground that the issue in the case of petitioners is covered
    by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 26.8.2020
    in the case of Sanjay Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.;
    Civil Appeal No.8300 of 2016.
    In that regard, the submission of learned counsel for the
    petitioners is that the issue raised and decided by the Hon’ble
    Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh & Ors.(supra) will
    not have any effect on the services rendered by the petitioners
    as the petitioners were appointed in terms of the mandate of
    Section 18 of the Act whereas the persons who were affected by
    the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
    Sanjay Singh & Ors. (supra) are the persons who were not
    appointed under Section 18 of the Act and thus, the petitioners
    are not covered by the said judgment, as is trying to be
    misinterpreted by the respondents.
    Learned counsel for the petitioners further draws the attention
    of this Court to a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated
    2.11.2022 passed in the case of Dinesh Singh v. State of U.P. &
    Ors.; Special Appeal No.458 of 2022 wherein the question with
    regard to applicability of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
    Court in the case of Sanjay Singh & Ors. (supra) was
    considered and the Court was of the view that the case decided
    by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh &
    Ors. (supra) was issue with regard to the petitioners who were
    appointed on ad-hoc basis but do not have any statutory right to
    be regularized in terms of the Act.
    In the present case, no orders have been passed stopping the
    salary payable to the petitioners as well as the fact remains that
    the case for regularization is pending in respect of each of the
    petitioners either under Section 33C or 33G and has not attained
    finality; prima-facie there is no reason for non-payment of
    salary to the petitioners specifically by the sanctioning authority
    at District Pratapgarh and District Bahraich.
    Learned Additional Advocate General who had appeared to
    assist this Court was called upon to make a specific assertion
    with regard to the stand of the State Government with regard to
    payment of salary to the persons whose claims are pending
    consideration for regularization either under Section 33C or
    under Section 33G of the Act and as to whether the policy of
    non-payment of salary is uniformally applied in the entire State
    of Uttar Pradesh or not; he based upon instructions so received
    sought further time and informed the Court that it is the DIOS
    who is the competent authority to pay the salary and he has
    taken the decision, although he is not in a position to make a
    statement as to whether the similar orders are being passed in
    the entire State of Uttar Pradesh or not.
    Learned Additional Advocate General has specifically raised
    the issue with regard to maintainability as well as the fact that
    in certain places in the writ petition, there appears to be
    contradiction in the pleadings; he argues that the petitioners had
    earlier approached this Court seeking a relief for regularization
    under Section 33C and 33G of the Act in respect of different
    petitioners and thus, the second writ petition specifically when
    they have deleted the Prayer No.1 would not be tenable.
    He further argues that there are inconsistent pleadings in the
    writ petition as at some places, the petitioners have stated that
    they are approaching this Court for the first time for the relief.
    The said preliminary objection merit rejection for two reasons;
    firstly, that the petitioners themselves had deleted their Prayer
    No.1 which has already been granted to the petitioner in
    different writ petitions and they confined their writ petition to
    Prayer No.2 being aggrieved of non-payment of salary without
    any orders and contrary to law.
    Inconsistent pleadings referred to by learned Additional
    Advocate General are also as a result of two prayers made in
    the writ petition with regard to relief for regularization which
    having been deleted by the petitioners themselves, prima-facie
    there is no inconsistency in the pleadings, as such, on both
    grounds, preliminary objection merits rejection and is
    accordingly rejected.
    Learned Additional Advocate General further argues that the
    case of Sanjay Singh & Ors. (supra) is applicable even for the
    petitioners who are seeking regularization and also argues that
    the Division Bench judgment as cited by learned counsel for the
    petitioners is not applicable as the same pertains to an issue
    whereby the issue of regulraization was also under
    consideration.
    Prima-facie, the said stand may not be tenable in view of the
    specific clarification issued in the case of Dinesh Singh (supra)
    coupled with the fact that there is nothing on record to
    demonstrate that the State has taken the stand that the judgment
    in the case of Sanjay Singh and Ors. (supra) would apply even
    in the case of the petitioners whose case for regularization is
    under consideration.
    Prima-facie, considering the ratio of the judgment in the case of
    Sanjay Singh & Ors. (supra) as well as the clarification as
    recorded in the case of Dinesh Singh (supra), there is no reason
    why the salary should not be paid to the petitioners pending
    consideration of their application either under Section 33C or
    33G of the Act, as the case may be.
    Thus, as an interim measure, respondents are directed to ensure
    payment of salary to the petitioners on a month to month basis.
    The arrears of salary which has not been paid shall be paid to
    the petitioners within a period of two months from today.
    Learned Standing Counsel may file a counter affidavit within
    four weeks.
    Rejoinder affidavit shall be filed within two weeks thereafter.
    List on 21.2.2023.
    Order Date :- 10.1.2023
    nishant

admin

Up Secondary Education Employee ,Who is working to permotion of education

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *