Surendra Kumar Gupta vs State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 1124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Surendra Kumar Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 55825 of 2015
Decided On : 18-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Santosh Kumar Mishra.
For the Respondent: Arun Kumar Gupta.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 - This Court addressed the illegality of withholding increments due to lack of disciplinary proceedings, the necessity of communication of adverse ACR entries for promotion, and the implications of a pending criminal case on service benefits. (Paras 11, 12, 27, 46, 48)

(B) Jurisdiction of Management - The Management has no right to impose penalties without following prescribed regulations and obtaining prior approval from the Board, making such actions invalid. (Paras 11, 26, 39)

(C) Promotion Recommendations - Employees facing allegations but not guilty should receive fair consideration for promotions, with decisions kept in sealed cover until the resolution of criminal proceedings. (Paras 42, 46)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a teacher at a state-aided school, was wrongfully accused and suspended without due process, resulting in withheld increments and denial of promotion pay scale, prompting him to seek judicial intervention. The court found that no disciplinary action was taken, making the withholding of increments unauthorized. (Paras 4, 19)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the condition for withholding increments was ultra vires, and any decision regarding the promotion pay scale must not consider uncommunicated adverse ACR entries, deferring implementation pending the criminal case's outcome. (Paras 48)

Issues: The central issues included legality of the withheld increments, the requirements for valid punishment, and the handling of promotions amid pending criminal proceedings. (Paras 20, 48)

Ratio Decidendi: The court's rationale emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions, strict compliance with regulations for penalties, and how mere allegations cannot deny an employee's rightful promotions or benefits. (Paras 20, 39)

Result: The petition was partially allowed, quashing the impugned order and directing the reinstatement of withheld increments with interest, while promoting fair consideration for future promotions. (Paras 48, 49)

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. The reliefs sought in this petition are so many and so much lavish in detail, that it would be wise to quote the prayer clause verbatim. The prayer clause (limited to the material reliefs alone here) reads:

(ii) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of increment of July 2009 for the period July 2009 to November 2010 alongwith interest.

(iii) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of increment of July 2010 for the period July 2010 to November 2010 alongwith interest.

(iv) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents that the petitioner may be given the benefit of revised pay scale of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- with effect from 1.2.2010 alongwith interest.

(v) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents that the petitioner may be provided the payment of difference of salary and subsistence allowance with effect from 1.04.2009 to 31.05.2010 alongwith interest.

(vi) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents that the petitioner may be paid the salary with effect from 25.03.2009 to 31.03.2009 alongwith interest.

(vii) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents that the salary of the strike period of 35 days (with effect from 16.01.1984 to 19.02.1984) may be paid to the petitioner alongwith interest.

(viii) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents that a sum of Rs. 385/- of G.P.F. may be paid to the petitioner alongwith interest.

2. Out of these manifold reliefs, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in his wisdom has not pressed Relief Nos. (vii) and (viii) at the hearing.

3. In order to appreciate the petitioner’s grievance, the redressal whereof he seeks, it would be apposite to refer to facts that have given rise to this petition. The Ram Prasad Bismil Higher Secondary School, Divnapur, District Bareilly is a recognized College under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short ‘the Act of 1921’). The aforesaid intermediate college shall hereinafter be referred to as the College. The College is in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government and salaries to its teachers and other employees are paid out of funds provided by the State Government under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. The said Act shall hereinafter be called as the Act of 1971.

4. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the College in the B.T.C. Grade on 01.02.1973. After completion of five years’ service in the B.T.C. Grade, the petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher in the C.T. Grade. Upon the C.T. Grade being declared a dying cadre and the petitioner completing ten years’ service in the C.T. Grade, he automatically became a teacher in the L.T. Grade. He was absorbed in the L.T. Grade w.e.f. 01.02.1988. Upon completion of ten years of regular service in the L.T. Grade, the petitioner was granted L.T. Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.02.1998. He was appointed as the ad hoc Principal vide order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly and worked as such up to April, 2011. He retired from service on 30.06.2012 upon attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of his retirement, he was serving the College as an assistant teacher in the L.T. Grade (placed in the Selection Grade).

5. At this stage, it is necessary to look at some events that happened in the year 2009 and their cascading effect upon the petitioner’s service record, emoluments and post retiral benefits. While