SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 32

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Appellants
Versus
Ali Hussain Ansari and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 314 of 2020 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18627 of 2019)
Decided On : 15-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Harish Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Bipin Bihari Singh, Ashok Anand, Rakesh Kr. Singh, Somanatha Padhan, B.P. Gupta, Rajvir Singh Bhati, Advocates

Headnote:

Service law - Salary arrears - First respondent selected and recommended for appointment - Not appointed by managing committee - Instead, fresh advertisement on 08.06.1987 and another person appointed - This appointment not approved by competent authority - Incumbent continuing in service by virtue of interim orders of High Court - Writ petition of the incumbent finally dismissed by High Court on 22.02.2006 - First respondent thereafter appointed on 30.06.2006 and retired on 30.06.2009 - High Court giving benefit of service to first respondent from 08.06.1987 but without salary till 30.06.2006 - While maintaining direction of High Court entitling first respondent to retirement benefits treating him to be in service with effect from 08.06.1987 with seniority and benefit of promotion(s), if any, for the purpose of payment of retirement benefits, Supreme Court granting compensation of Rs.4 lacs for the said period. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. State of Uttar Pradesh and its functionaries have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the Division Bench has dismissed their appeal and affirmed the order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge directing grant of consequential benefits in the form of post-retirement benefits with seniority in service and promotion(s), if any, but not actual payment of salary for the period between 08.06.1987 to 30.06.2006. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment has thereby affirmed the finding regarding continuation of service treating the first respondent’s initial date of appointment as 08.06.1987 and directed that the period between 8.6.1987 till the date of actual joining on 30.06.2006 shall be counted for the purpose of consequential benefits, including pensionary benefits, albeit would be excluded for payment of back wages.

3. Having heard counsel for the parties, we feel, in view of peculiar facts and on balance of equities, the directions regarding the postretirement benefit etc. as granted requires a modification.

4. Ali Hussain Ansari, the first respondent before us, 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. Aggrieved with the stand taken by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, Shesh Mani Shukla assailed these orders in Writ Petition No. 14530/1988 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the interim order dated 27.01.1992, the appellants before us, including 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 23.04.2004, when the High Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition filed by him. Aggrieved, Shesh Mani Shukla had preferred Special Appeal No. 590 of 2004 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 22.02.2006. The appeal against this judgment was also dismissed by this Court in C.A. No. 4966 of 2009 vide judgement dated 31.07.2009.

5. 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 30.06.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation.

6. On or about 01.05.2008, the first respondent had filed Writ Petition No. 221012 of 2008 before the High Court seeking payment of arrears of salary from 08.06.1987 till 30.06.2006. This Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 01.05.2008 of the learned Single Judge with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria to consider and decide the representation made by the first respondent. The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria vide order dated 20.05.2009 rejected the representation for payment of arrears of salary


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top