BRIJESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who was appointed as Assistant Teacher, Sanskrit under Tribhasha Sutra Yojana in Swargeeya Jai Pal Singh Shitla Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mukharna, Jitauli, District Etah, a recognized Junior High School, under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. It is pertinent to note that Assistant Director of Education (Basic) by communication dated 14.11.1995, addressed to District Basic Education Officer, Etah, informed him that out of four sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers in the Institution, one would be for Sanskrit Language under Tribhasha Sutra Yojana. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Sanskrit Language under the said scheme and the approval to his appointment was granted by the District Basic Education Officer, Etah vide his letter dated 7.12.1995 to the Management. It has come on record that for purposes of payment of salary to the petitioner, necessary grant in aid was provided by the State Government on yearly basis, e.g. in the year 1998-1999, a sum of Rs. 48,420/- was sanctioned vide order dated 8.3.2002 and for the year 1995-1996 and 1996-1997, a total sum of Rs. 50,869/- was sanctioned vide order dated 12.1.2004. The case of the petitioner is that although he had taught in the Institution continuously without any break in service, but he was not paid salary for Academic Sessions 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The petitioner therefore approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 36149 of 2008, raising a grievance regarding non payment of his salary. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 31.7.2008, requiring Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow to decide the representation of the petitioner within two months. In compliance thereof, the Director of Education (Basic) by order dated 13.2.2009 decided the representation, admitting that the salary of the petitioner for the Academic Sessions 1995-1996, 1998-1999, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 had been duly paid on basis of grant in aid made available to the Institution. In respect of the remaining years, it has been recorded that the payment could not be made as necessary budget was not made available. It has also been observed that as soon as budgetary allocation is made, the payment would be made.

(2.) The District Basic Education Officer has filed a counter affidavit in which he has also taken the same stand, namely that payment would be made as soon as budget is allocated in that regard by the State Government.

(3.) A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the Joint Director of Education on behalf of the State respondents, in which it is alleged that the Institution being an unaided one, the liability to pay salary to the petitioner was that of the Management. The Government is not responsible for paying salary to the petitioner. On the face of it, the stand taken in the counter affidavit is contrary to what has been recorded in the impugned order dated 13.2.2009 by Director of Education (Basic) himself, while deciding the representation of the petitioner. As noted above, in the said order, it was admitted that in previous years, the salary was paid to the petitioner from the budgetary allocation made by the State Government, specifically for the purposes of disbursement of salary to the petitioner. The order also contains an admission relating to liability of the State Government to make payment for the remaining period.