The court held that interruptions in the respondent's service were caused by deliberate and mala fide actions of the institution and the State authorities were also held responsible for not preventing the wrongful actions of the institution.

ORDER :

On Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2022

1. There is a delay of 50 days in filing this appeal.

2. Heard learned Counsel for parties.

3. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. Cause shown is sufficient. Delaying in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. The application is allowed.

On Appeal

5. The State of U.P. through the Secretary, Basic Education and three other officers of the Department of Basic Education have preferred this appeal from the judgment and order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ -A No. 18523 of 2021.

6. By the judgment and order impugned, the writ petition preferred by respondent no. 2 (for short, 'the writ petitioner') has been allowed. The learned Judge quashed the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya, declining various remunerative entitlements of the writ petitioner, an Assistant Teacher with an aided and recognized institution. The learned Single Judge has further issued a mandamus, ordering the appellants here, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition, to ensure payment to the writ petitioner of his bonus, increment from 22.12.1997, selection grade from 2007, arrears of salary from 22.12.1997 to 22.12.2002 of the untrained grade along with interest @ 7.5% p.a., within eight weeks of the judgment. It has further been ordered that any delay in payment would entitle the writ petitioner simple interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount due.

7. The writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Untrained) under the Dying-in-Harness Rules on 27.10.1997 at the Pandit Nehru Madhyamik Vidyalay, Bhararipur, Auraiya. The aforesaid school shall hereinafter be called 'the institution'. The institution is duly recognized and receives Government grant-in-aid. The District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya, by an order dated 30.05.1998, terminated the services of the writ petitioner, without following the procedure prescribed. The said order was set aside by the Joint Director of Education (Basic), Kanpur Region, Kanpur vide order dated 09.11.1998. Despite the writ petitioner's termination order being set aside, the institution did not permit him to join. The writ petitioner instituted Writ Petition No. 43219 of 1998, wherein an interim order was passed in his favour. The Headmaster of the institution challenged the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 09.11.1998 vide Writ Petition No. 49586 of 1999. Both the writ petitions were connected and heard together. By a judgment and order dated 13.09.2004, the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner was allowed, whereas that instituted by the Headmaster was dismissed. The order of the Joint Director of Education was, therefore, upheld and the writ petitioner held entitled to reinstatement.

8. The Headmaster of the institution carried a Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2004 passed in the two writ petitions last mentioned, which was dismissed. The orders of this Court as well as the Joint Director of Education were not complied with. This led the writ petitioner to bring contempt proceedings. The writ petitioner was permitted to join, but never granted the benefits of trained grade and other benefits. He then instituted Writ -A No. 67145 of 2006, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2010, directing the respondents to grant trained grade to the writ petitioner. The order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge last mentioned was challenged in Special Appeal. That appeal is still said to be pending.

9. In the next chapter of troubles for the writ petitioner, the Headmaster of the institution suspended him. The order of suspension was challenged before this Court, which was stayed. The writ petitioner's services were then terminated by the institution, but the order of termination was disapproved by the District Basic Education Officer by his order dated 05.03.2019. The writ petitioner was al