The Allahabad High Court has directed the payment of outstanding salary and other benefits to Kanti Mishra, a teacher of Vidyawati Darbari Balika Inter College, Lukerganj, Prayagraj, from her appointment till 2006.
The division bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by Kanti Mishra.
The intra-court appeal is preferred against the order passed by Single Judge dated 09.08.2024, wherein the appellant-petitioner had challenged the order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) IV Division, Allahabad, whereby the Deputy Director of Education had rejected the petitioner’s claim for payment of arrears of salary for the period from 18.03.1994 to 31.03.2006 on the ground that the petitioner had not performed teaching work during that period and the Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition.
The Court noted that a selection process was initiated by the Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Balika Inter College, Lukerganj, Allahabad for appointment on two posts of Assistant Teachers (BTC Grade). The appellant-petitioner having essential qualification had applied for appointment on the said post and was called for interview.
After the interview, two separate panels were prepared for two posts. In one post, Smt Rekha Pandey was placed at Serial No 1 and for second post, Smt Himanshi Bajaj was placed at Serial No1 and the appellant petitioner was placed at Serial No 2. The appellant-petitioner set up a case that after sometime, Smt Himanshi Bajaj left the institution and as such, the Committee of Management issued an appointment letter to the appellant-petitioner on 12.03.1994.
In pursuance thereof, she joined the post on 18.03.1994. Thereafter, the papers were sent for approval by the Committee of Management to the Deputy Director of Education, however, the Deputy Director of Education did not pass any order and the appellant-petitioner continued to work.
The Court further noted that the appellant filed a writ petition before the Court being a Writ Petition seeking direction for payment of salary from 18.03.1994. During pendency of said writ petition, the Regional Deputy Director of Education (II), IV Division, Allahabad passed an order dated 13.03.1995 refusing to grant approval on the ground that selected candidate, Smt Himanshi Bajaj has already joined and the select list stood exhausted.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant amended the Writ Petition, which was disposed of on 16.05.2005 and the order 13.03.1995 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education (II), IV Division, Allahabad was quashed and the respondents were directed to pass an appropriate order according to law giving reasons after giving full opportunity to the petitioner therein within a period of three months. The said order was not challenged by the authorities and, later on, in compliance with the order dated 16.05.2005, the Deputy Director of Education again reiterated its earlier stand by order dated 09.08.2005.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-petitioner again approached the Court by filing Writ Petition, which was allowed by the Court by order dated 04.10.2005 with the finding that as earlier the Court has already found that the petitioner therein was entitled to be permitted to work on the basis of her initial appointment and Deputy Director of Education is not justified to reiterate the same finding, which it had given in compliance of the earlier order of the Court. However, while passing the order dated 04.10.2005 the matter was again remitted back to the Deputy Director of Education for re-consideration of the case on merits.
The Court also noted that in response to the order dated 04.10.2005 the Deputy Director of Education allowed the representation of the petitioner and in compliance thereof, the Committee of Management had issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 31.03.2006 and the salary of the petitioner was started to be paid w.e.f. 03.04.2006 onwards but no arrears of salary was given to the appellant petitioner for the period 18.03.1994 to 02.04.2006 for 12 long years.
The record also reveals that the appellant-petitioner again set up her claim through representation for payment of her salary for the period 18.03.1994 to 02.04.2006, when she was initially appointed by the Committee of Management. Once the claim set up by the appellant petitioner was not accepted, the appellant-petitioner instituted another writ petition being Writ Petition, which was disposed of by order dated 11.10.2012.
The Court observed that,
The Committee of Management published the advertisement for two posts of Assistant Teacher in BTC Grade in the institution in question, which is a recognized and aided institution. For two posts, two separate panels were prepared and on one post, Smt Rekha Pandey was placed at serial no1. For the second post, Smt Himanshini Bajaj was placed at serial no 1 and the appellant-petitioner was placed at serial no 2. It is not in dispute that Smt Himanshini Bajaj was selected somewhere else and she left the institution.
Consequently, the Committee of Management allowed the appellant-petitioner to function as Assistant Teacher from 18.3.1994. It is also an admitted case that the appointment letter was issued in favour of the appellant-petitioner. Even though, categorical finding of fact had been returned by the Single Judge in earlier two rounds of litigation.
Admittedly, once the matter was remitted back then the Deputy Director of Education, ought to have passed an order in the light of the directions and observations made by the Writ Court in Writ Petition. However, the Deputy Director of Education had passed the order dated 09.08.2005 and reiterated his earlier stand, which was already negated by the Writ Court. Said order was challenged by the appellant-petitioner in Writ Petition, which was allowed by the Writ Court on 04.10.2005 with detailed observations.
Admittedly, the respondents had issued an appointment letter in favour of the appellant-petitioner and she joined as Assistant Teacher on 18.3.1994. Later on, once her salary w.e.f 18.03.1994 to 12.04.2006 had not been paid, then she again invoked the writ jurisdiction by preferring Writ, which was disposed of with detailed observations/direction by the Single Judge on 11.10.2012. While disposing of the said writ petition, the Single Judge had also opined that cause of petitioner i.e for payment of her salary w.e.f 18.03.1994 to 31.03.2006 is to be considered in the light of the observations made in the said order.
Once the said finding of fact has been returned by the Single Judge in earlier three rounds of litigation, wherein the Court had also observed that there was no fault on the part of the appellant petitioner and the Committee of Management allowed her to work from 18.3.1994 then she cannot be allowed to suffer.
“Considering the observations so made by the Single Judge in the impugned judgement, we find that nowhere the Single Judge dealt with the categorical finding, which was returned by the Single Judge while passing the earlier order dated 04.10.2005 and further detailed observations/direction, which was made in Writ. Once the categorical finding of fact was returned by the Single Judge on the basis of record then the said finding of fact cannot be upset by the same strength of coordinate Bench. Even though the respondent educational authorities had never challenged the successive orders passed by the Writ Court before the Division Bench. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of fact, which was already returned by the Single Judge in the aforesaid proceedings, cannot be upset by the Single Judge while passing the impugned order”, the Court further observed while allowing the appeal.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court opined that the order dated 02.01.2013 passed by Deputy Director of Education-II, Allahabad is per se unsustainable and is hereby set aside.
“The order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Single Judge in Writ (Smt Kanti Mishra v State of U.P & others) is also set aside and a direction is issued to the competent authority i.e respondent nos1 & 2 to ensure payment of arrears of salary to the appellant-petitioner w.e.f 18.03.1994 to 31.03.2006 treating her to be in service and, accordingly, consequential benefits shall also be extended to her expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it,” the Court ordered.