IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior approval for the termination of a Group 'D' employee, as mandated by Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Ministerial Staff And Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984.

JUDGMENT :

1. The special appeal arises out of an order passed by the writ court on 18.1.2024 disposing of the appellant's Writ-A No. 24667 of 2017. Services of the petitioner-appellant have been terminated by the management and the order was sent to District Basic Education Officer for his approval. Learned Single Judge has noticed that no decision has been taken on decision of management and this aspect is not even clarified in the personal affidavit of the officer. A direction has accordingly been issued to the District Basic Education Officer to take a decision regarding grant of approval to the order of termination within a period of two weeks.. In default, the petitioner has been held entitled to salary for the period he has actually worked, subject to verification.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory scheme has been completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge and facts have not been examined in correct perspective.

3. It is undisputed that the appellant was a Class-IV employee in the Mahajan Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Salempur, Deoria. This Institution is duly recognized and the provisions of the Payment of Salaries Act, 1978 are applicable upon it. The services of the appellant were approved and he was working. The management apparently objected to the working of the appellant and consequently the appellant filed Writ A No. 7588 of 2016, which came to be disposed of on 19.2.2016 vide following order:-

"It is stated that petitioner is a Class-IV employee, working in the institution, but the Management for the reasons unknown, is not permitting him to incorporate signature in the attendance register, and on such count, the salary of petitioner alongwith two other employees has been stopped since the year 2013. It is contended that subsequently payment of salary to other two persons has been restored, but petitioner continues to be victimized. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Management of the institution is acting in an arbitrary manner, and the authorities are not examining the petitioner's grievance.

Notices on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 have been accepted by learned Standing Counsel, whereas Sri S.K. Gupta has accepted notices on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4.

Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed today, notices need not be issued to the respondent no. 5, as it would further delay the disposal of cause, and the writ petition is being disposed of, at this stage, itself.

Considering the facts and circumstances, as have been noticed above, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent no.4 to examine the grievance of petitioner, noticed above, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned speaking order to be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing in the matter to respondent no.5, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. All consequential action shall be taken, accordingly.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of."

4. The appellant accordingly represented before the District Basic Education Officer that he be allowed to continue in the employment of the Institution and be paid salary. Since, no orders were passed by the District Basic Education Officer, a Contempt Application (Civil) No. 6230 of 2016 was field, in which further time was granted to the District Basic Education Officer to comply with the order of the Writ Court. It is pursuant to this direction that the District Basic Education Officer has passed the order impugned in the writ filed before the learned Single Judge. This order is dated 31.3.2017. In the discussion part of this order it is recorded that the Block Education Officer has submitted a report on 21.7.2014, as per which the appellant was not attending to his duties and his signatures were not available in the attendance register. The Management also informed that with effect from 1.7.2013 the appellant was not working. T