Sarthak Khandelwal | Kirit P. Mehta School Of Law, NMIMS University, Mumbai | 20th January 2020
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS V. ALI HUSSAIN ANSARI AND ANOTHERCIVIL APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2020
Facts of Case:
Ali Hussain Ansari, the first respondent, was recommended for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Satya Prakash Vivekanand Inter College, Musahari, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh on ad hoc basis. However, the Committee of Management in the said college, the second respondent before us, did not agree and consequently did not issue an appointment letter. They issued an advertisement dated 08/07/1987 for direct recruitment to the post.
The names registered with the Employment Exchange were to be included. One Shesh Mani Shukla, upon selection, was appointed and a letter dated 11/09/1987 was written to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria for approval. However, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria declined and did not grant approval vide his letter dated 10/12/1987 stating inter alia that the selection of Shesh Mani Shukla was contrary to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981.
By order dated 20/04/1988, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria refused to grant financial approval for appointment of Shesh Mani Shukla, he assailed these orders in Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the interim order dated 27/01/1992, District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and the second respondent were directed to pay salary to Shesh Mani Shukla. Therefore, and in terms of the interim directions, Shesh Mani Shukla had worked and was paid salary till 23/04/04, when the High Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition filed by him.
Thereupon, the first respondent was issued appointment letter and was appointed as Assistant Professor on 30.06.2006 after the competent authority, that is, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria had issued order dated 31.07.2006. The first respondent retired from service on 30/06/09 on attaining the age of superannuation.
On 01/05/08, the first respondent had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking payment of arrears of salary from 08/06/1987 till 30/06/06. The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria vide order dated 20/05/2009 rejected the representation for payment of arrears of salary on the principle of “no work no pay”. Aggrieved, the first respondent had preferred Writ Petition which was disposed of vide judgment dated 04/01/2018 directing that the first respondent would be entitled to consequential benefits including pension benefits with effect from 08/06/1987.However, actual salary was not to be paid on the principle of “no work no pay”.
HELD:
It is apparent that Shesh Mani Shukla upon selection and appointment had filed a Writ Petition in 1988 and worked as an Assistant Professor till 2004. This was in view of the interim directions issued by the High Court. The salary was also paid to Shesh Mani Shukla as the Assistant Professor. The first respondent though recommended for the vacant post of Assistant Teacher was never issued an appointment letter and was not appointed and had not worked till he joined the post on 30.06.2006. After working for three years, he retired on 30.06.2009. Keeping in view the aforesaid peculiar factual position, we would modify the directions given by the Court on the payment of retirement benefits with a direction that the first respondent would be paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs only) as compensation. This compensation would be in addition to any other benefits which would be payable to the first respondent in accordance with law treating his date of appointment as 30.06.2006. The aforesaid sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs only) would be paid by the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of this order and in case of delay of payment, the appellant would be liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Leave a Reply