State of U. P. through Chief Secretary, Government of U. P. , Lucknow vs Anurag

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 1179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJESH BINDAL, CJ., J.J. MUNIR, J.
State of U.P. through Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow and others - Appellants
Versus
Anurag and others - Respondents
Special Appeal No.403, 399 of 2019, 465, 775 of 2020, Special Appeal Defective No.660 of 2020
Decided on : 02-12-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate General, Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Suresh Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel in person; and Dr. L.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Dubey, Advocate and Mr. Ran Vijay Singh
For the Respondents:Mr. H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Srivastava and Ms. Durga Tiwari, Mr. A.P. Singh, Mr. V.P. Singh, Ms. Geeta Chauhan, Ms. Pratima Rani, Ms. Richa Singh, Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh, Mr. B.M. Singh, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Om, Advocates in person; and Mr. Mukund Madhav Asthana, Mr. Hemant Kumar Mishra, Ms. Surangama Sharma and Ms.Meenakshi Singh Parihar

Headnote:(A) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Section 1(3), 7(2), 7(5), 8 - Honorarium payment dispute - The learned Single Judge quashed state orders reducing honorarium from Rs.17,000/- to Rs.9800/- for part-time Instructors and mandated payment at the former rate from March 2017, with interest of 9% p.a. - Court upheld earlier decisions of the Project Approval Board stating that reductions by the State's Executive Committee lacked authority. (Paras 20, 22, 31, 48)

(B) Mandamus Issued - Mandamus for future payment of honorarium cannot extend beyond the period set by the Project Approval Board's decision for 2017-18. (Paras 3, 54)

Facts of the case:
This appeal concerns part-time Physical Education Instructors from government schools beginning June 2013, who sought mandated remuneration as per the approved guidelines under the Act of 2009. The state reduced their honorarium based on funding issues but faced legal challenge.

Findings of Court:
The court found the State's decision to reduce honorarium invalid as it contravened the Project Approval Board’s decision and legal obligations under the Act of 2009.

Issues: The core issues included the State’s authority to unilaterally reduce payments determined by the Project Approval Board.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the binding nature of the Project Approval Board's decisions and that executive actions cannot override statutory requirements within the Act 2009, reinforcing that educational standards under the law cannot be compromised.

Result: Appeals allowed in part, judgment upheld for Rs.17,000/- honorarium for 2017-18, but not for subsequent years.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeals (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of the leading case (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. statutory regime and its implications (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. financial proposals and their implementations (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. court's prior directives and issues (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. state government's counterarguments (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. judicial observations on executive powers (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
8. court findings on previous judgments (Para 22 , 23)
9. arguments from the state (Para 24 , 25)
10. arguments from the petitioners (Para 26 , 27)
11. counterarguments analysis (Para 28 , 29)
12. analysis of legislative context (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
13. analysis of funding issues (Para 33 , 34)
14. role of instructors in education (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
15. legislative responsibility and implications (Para 39 , 40)
16. court's conclusions on financial responsibilities (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
17. final court directives and rulings (Para 45 , 46)
18. conclusion of appeals (Para 47 , 48)

ORDER :

1. This order will dispose of a bunch of Appeals raising similar questions of law and fact. Writ Petition No. 7631 (SS) of 2018, titled as ‘ Anurag and another vs. U.O.I. through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development and others ’ and Writ Petition No. 27505 (SS) of 2018, titled as ‘Amit Verma and others vs. U.O.I. through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, School Education & Literacy and others’ were decided by the Lucknow Bench of this Court by a common order dated July 3, 2019. Subsequently, the same order was followed at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 55328 of 2017, titled as ‘ Rakesh Patel and another vs. Union of India and others’ , Writ-A No. 3169 of 2018, titled as ‘ Bhola Nath Pandey vs. Union of India’ , Writ-A No. 55334 of 2017, titled as ‘ Bhola Nath Pandey and others vs. Union of India and others ’ and Writ-A No. 3119 of 2018, titled as ‘ Anita Kushwaha and another vs. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development’ .

2. To avoid repetition and give opportunity to the Counsel appearing for the parties, all the Appeals were taken up together. The Appeals pertaining to Lucknow Bench were heard through Video Conferencing, whereas in the Appeals filed at Allahabad, the Counsel were heard in person. The details of the Appeals are as under:

Sl. No	Special Appeal	Arising out of	Decided on
Appeals pertaining to Writs decided by the Lucknow Bench
1.	Special Appeal No. 403 of 2019	Service Single No. 7631 of 2018	03/07/2019
2.	Special Appeal No. 399 of 2019	Service Single No. 27505 of 2018	03/07/2019
Appeals pertaining to Writs decided at Allahabad
3.	Special Appeal Defective No. 660 of 2020	Writ-A No. 55328 of 2017	20/08/2019
4.	Special Appeal No. 465 of 2020	Writ-A No. 3169 of 2018	20/08/2019
5.	Special Appeal No. 463 of 2020	Writ-A No. 55334 of 2017	20/08/2019
6.	Special Appeal No. 775 of 2020	Writ-A No. 3119 of 2018	20/08/2019

3. All the Special Appeals have been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Those appeals, that have been preferred before the Lucknow Bench, arise from judgments and orders of the learned Single Judge sitting at Lucknow, whereas Special Appeals numbering four, filed at Allahabad, arise out of the judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge at Allahabad. Since all the appeals involve common questions of fact and law, and arise out of writ petitions involving identical cause of action, seeking substantially the same relief, albeit worded differently in some writ petitions, all the appeals have been heard together by consent of parties.

4. Special Appeal No. 403 of 2019 by the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, allowing the petition and quashing the order dated December 21, 2017 passed by the Executive Committee of the Uttar P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(All) 1179

Cases Referred (4)

Related Judgments

State of U. P. through Chief Secretary, Government of U. P. , Lucknow VS Anurag - 2022 Supreme(All) 1179

U. P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2026 2 Supreme 589

Anita Devi VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 1153

Shesh Ram VS State Of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 894

Payal Singh vs The State of Bihar and Ors - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 271

Mizoram SSA Teachers Association r/b its President VS State of Mizoram - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 490

Md. Nizam Uddin VS State of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 329

Rutesh S/o. Shamrao Lonkar VS State of Maharashtra, Department of Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1407

State of U.P. vs Ramesh Kumar Singh - 2026 Supreme(All) 15

State of U.P. vs Ramesh Kumar Singh - 2026 Supreme(All) 2