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
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
उसके बाद दो सप्ताह के भीतर प्रत्युत्तर हलफनामा दायर किया जाएगा।
21.2.2023 को सूची।
आदेश दिनांक:- 10.1.2023
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
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsha Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
Rejoinder affidavit shall be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List on 21.2.2023.
Order Date :- 10.1.2023