Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K.S. VARMA, S.S. AHMAD, JJ.
Committee Of Management Of Dadanr Inter College, Dadaur, District Rae Bareli - Appellant
Versus
District Inspector Of Schools, Rae Bareli - Respondent
Writ Petition. No. 1585 and 5207 of 1983
Decided on : Apr 23, 1984
SALARY PAYMENT TO TEACHERS - U. P. HIGH SCHOOLS AND INTERMEDIATE COLLEGES (PAYMENT OF SALARIES OF TEACHERS AND OTHERS EMPLOYEES) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 3, 5 - ACT APPLIES TO TEACHERS ABSENT FROM DUTY - SALARY CANNOT BE WITHHELD UNLESS TEACHER DISMISSED OR SUSPENDED - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a college, challenged an order directing it to pay salaries to teachers who were absenting themselves from duty. The teachers claimed that they were not attending due to safety concerns, but an investigation found no basis for their claims. The petitioner argued that the teachers were not entitled to salary as they were not discharging their duties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the teachers were entitled to their salary as long as they held their appointment in the institution and their appointment subsisted. The court noted that the teachers had not been suspended or dismissed from service and that no departmental proceedings had been taken against them. The court also held that the petitioner could not make fresh appointments to fill the vacancies created by the teachers' absence as their appointments had not been terminated.
Issues: 1. Whether teachers who are absenting themselves from duty are entitled to salary? 2. Whether the petitioner could make fresh appointments to fill the vacancies created by the teachers' absence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 3 of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and others Employees) Act, 1971 provides that the salary of a teacher shall be paid before the expiry of the twentieth day of the month. Section 5 of the Act provides the procedure for payment of salary in case of certain institutions. 2. Regulation No. 36 of the Regulations framed under the Act lays down the procedure for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the teachers. If teachers are found guilty of misconduct, they can be suspended or dismissed from service.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions filed by the petitioner. It held that the teachers were entitled to their salary as long as they held their appointment in the institution and their appointment subsisted. The court also held that the petitioner could not make fresh appointments to fill the vacancies created by the teachers' absence as their appointments had not been terminated.
Key Points: - The Act provides salary to teachers before the 20th day of the month, with mechanisms for payment if default occurs by the management (!) - Absent teachers who have not been suspended or dismissed remain entitled to salary; management may initiate disciplinary proceedings to suspend or dismiss, but cannot withhold salary solely for absence without termination/suspension (!) - If vacancies exist only after termination or suspension, fresh appointments may be made; absent teachers’ appointments cannot be used to justify new hires while they remain in service (!) (!) - Disciplinary procedures and regulatory framework allow suspension with subsistence allowance, not full salary, if misconduct proven (!) - The court dismissed writ petitions, holding teachers’ salary must be paid as long as appointment subsists, and the management cannot appoint fresh teachers until vacancies are created by termination or suspension (!) (!) (!)
E. S. Varma, J.
1. Opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 in writ petition No. 1585 of 1983 are Assistant Teachers in the institution run by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the said teachers have been absenting themselves from the institution and have not been attending to teaching work from various dates. According to the petitioner the said opposite parties did not inform the reason for their absence to the Manager or the Principal of the College. On 2-2-1983, opposite parties 3 to 8 addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of Education in which they complained that the Principal of college on 31-1-1983 misbehaved with Shri Basudeo Verma, Opposite party no. 7. Opposite party no. 1 vide his letter dated 7-2-1983 intimated this fact to the Manager of the College. A true copy of the said letter is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. By Annexure 4, opposite party no. 1 required the Manager of the College to make an inquiry at his level and to intimate the result of the inquiry to him by post. A true copy of the letter is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. After the receipt of the said letter, the Manager of the College made an inquiry into the allegations levelled by Shri Basudeo Verma against the Principal of the College and by communication dated 9-2-1983, opposite party no. 1 was informed of the result of the inquiry. A true copy of the said letter is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. A perusal of Annexure 5 indicates that the Manager of the College reported to the District Inspector of Schools that the allegations of the teachers in regard to the misbehaviour of the Principal of the College were unfounded. The report further indicates that on 31-1-1983 opposite party no. 7 Shri Basudeo Verma came to the college at about 12 o 'clock in the noon and the Principal told him that while singing the Attendance Register he may indicate the time of his coming. On this opposite party no. 7 misbehaved and used abusive language against the Principal. The Manager also reported that opposite parties nos. 3 to 5, 7 and 8 did not attend the college from 3-2-1983 to 9-2-1983 and that they have not attended the college and have also not applied for leave of absence Indicating reasons for their absence. The petitioner has also stated that in respect of the allegations levelled by opposite parties 3 to 8 addressed to opposite party no. 1 investigation was made by the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli and they felt satisfied that there was no truth in the allegations made by opposite parties 3 to 8 in their representation dated 2/2/1983. The said opposite parties also reported to opposite party no 1 that there was danger to their lives and they were not attending the college and were reporting to opposite party no. 1 for purposes of their attendance being noted in his office. Opposite party no 1, after taking into account the representation of opposite parties 3 to 8 and having received the reports of the Manager of the college, the Supreintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli, intimated the said opposite parties that the investigation of the said three authorities indicated that there was no truth in the allegation of there being any danger to the lives of opposite parties 3 to 8 in attending their duties at the college. Opposite party no. 1, therefore, directed opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 to report for duty at the college on 7-3-1983 so that further loss may not be caused to the students in their teaching. A perusal of the record also indicates that opposite party no. 2 required opposite party no. 1 to permit opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 to mark their attendance in the office of opposite party no. 1 till adequate arrangements for safety of opposite parties were made. Opposite party no. 2 also directed opposite party no. 1 that if opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 attend his office than they may be paid their salary for the period also. The petitioner's case is that opposite parties nos
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
