IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
IRSHAD ALI, J.
Shesh Ram And 3 Others - Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. - Respondent
Writ A Nos. 6006, 6004, 2586, 4574, 5164, 5177, 5642, 5643, 5645, 5646 of 2002, 611 of 2004
Decided on : 29-09-2022
Salary Payment Condition - U.P. State Universities Act - Section 60-E - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed to various non-teaching staff positions in colleges based on recommendations and approvals. However, they were not paid salaries due to a condition imposed by the Government Order dated 31.08.1999, which stated that the State would not bear any liabilities for salary payment. The petitioners sought to quash this condition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the condition imposed in the Government Order and the consequent order were not in line with the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. It held that the State Government is liable for the payment of salaries to teachers and employees of every college after 31.03.1975. The court quashed the condition and directed the respondents to make regular monthly salary payments to the petitioners, including arrears.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the condition imposed in the Government Order dated 31.08.1999, which shifted the burden of salary payment from the State to the college management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 60-E of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, which mandates the State Government's liability for salary payments to college staff. It also emphasized that no government order or circular can substitute statutory rules framed with the authority of law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the condition incorporated in the Government Order dated 31.08.1999 and directed the respondents to make regular monthly salary payments to the petitioners, including arrears.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Radhika Singh and Sri Satish Chandra Sitapuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Alok Sharma, learned Additional C.S.C. for respondent-State and Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for respondent - Committee of Management.
2. This bunch of writ petitions is being decided by means of a common judgment and order treating WRIT-A No.6006 of 2002 to be leading writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the writ petitions, separately, are as under:
Writ-A No.6006 of 2002:
a) On 22.04.1999, an order was passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.17179 of 1999, whereby direction was issued to the respondents to decide the representation of the Committee of Management taking into consideration the norms fixed by the Government as well as the recommendations of Director Higher Education.
b) On 31.08.1999, a High Power Committee decided the representation of Committee of Management and sanctioned 64 posts of non teaching staffs in D.A.V. College, Kanpur and
D.B.S. College, Kanpur by sanctioning one post of Animal Catcher, one post of Glass Blower, one post of Gas Man and one post of Peon by imposing condition that the State shall not bear any liabilities with regard to payment of salary and the management would have to bear the burden.
c) In pursuance to aforesaid sanction, name of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were called from employment exchange and the meeting of selection committee was held on 27.02.2000 and selection of the petitioners was made.
d) The petitioners were appointed by the committee of management on the respective posts and when no action was taken by respondent No.3 on the communication dated 02.03.2000, they joined the duties on 13.12.2000.
e) Since then, the petitioners are discharging duty on their respective posts to the satisfaction of concerned authorities, however, they have not been paid salary, as the Committee of Management of the college has taken a stand that they do not have funds to pay in as much as, 80% of the fee collection is being deposited with the State Government, however, the respondents are not releasing the salary of the petitioners in view of condition imposed in the order dated 31.08.1999.
f) For the payment of salary to the petitioners, the committee of management has made several representations, but no heed has been paid to the same.
g) Petitioner No.3 -Rajendra Kumar died in the year 2008 and on his place, his wife has been granted appointment, who is getting regular salary month by month.
Writ-A No.6004 of 2002:
In pursuance to order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.17179 of 1999 on 22.04.1999 and in pursuance to recommendation made by the high power committee on 31.08.1999 for sanction of 64 posts of non-teaching staff, wherein six posts were sanctioned for Book Lifters (Pustakalaya Parichar), a selection committee was constituted, who appointed the petitioners on the post of Book Lifter on 13.12.2000 calling their name from employment exchange. Since then, the petitioners are discharging their duties but no salary has been paid to them in view of condition levelled in order dated 31.08.1999.
Writ - A No. - 2586 of 2002:
In pursuance to order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.17179 of 1999 on 22.04.1999 and in pursuance to recommendation made by the high power committee on 31.08.1999 for sanction of 64 posts of non-teaching staff, wherein one post of Cataloguer in each; D.A.V. College, Kanpur and D.B.S. College, Kanpur was sanctioned, a selection committee was constituted, who appointed the petitioner on the post of Cataloguer on 26.03.2001. Since then, the petitioner is discharging his duties but no salary has been paid to him in view of condition levelled in order dated 22.03.2001.
Writ - A No. - 4574 of 2002:
In pursuance to order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.17179 of 1999 on 22.04.1999 and in pursuance to recommendation made by the high power committee on 31.08.1999 for sanction of 64 posts of non-teaching st
Ajaya Kumar Das Vs. State of Orissa and others; [(2011) 11 SCC 136]
Commissioner of Central Excise
Dr. Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others; [(2001) 5 SCC 482].
Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and another Vs. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti and another
Mahadeo Bhau Khilare (MANE) and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; [(2007) 5 SCC 524].
Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage and others Vs. Ranjodh Singh and others; [(2007) 2 SCC 491].
State of U.P. and others Vs. C/M Sri Sukhpal Intermediate College, Tirhut
Sandur Micro Circuits Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
T.N. Housing Board Vs. N. Balasubramaniun and others; [(2004) 6 SCC 85].
The State Government's liability for salary payments to college staff as per Section 60-E of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, and the inability of government orders to override statutory rules.
It was also made clear by this court in said case that Universities are not obliged and expected to approve appointments made against non-existent posts.
Employees appointed before the establishment of regulations under the Act 2000 are entitled to salary from the State Exchequer, as their appointments were valid under the Act.
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
Appointments against sanctioned posts do not require prior approval from the State Government, allowing for post facto validation and regularization of service.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.