MAMTA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shyam Dhar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The brief facts of the case are that there was a Society in the name of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Shiksha Samiti Thorpa Khurd, Hathni, Mau. The said Society is running an institution named as Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Harijan Primary Pathshala Chorpakhurd duly recognised by the Samaj Kalyan Vibhag Government of U.P. The said institution was permanently recognised on 27.3.1992 by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mau.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a teacher in the year 1993 by the Committee of Management. The said institution being recognised by the Samaj Kalyan Vibhag Government of U.P. has been taken under grant-in-aid vide Government Order dated 31.3.1994, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition alongwith other institutions. The name of the petitioner's Samiti is at serial No. 68 of the list. 12 posts of teachers were sanctioned having regard to the students in the institution. By the letter dated 24.6.1994, the District Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Mau has granted approval of 12 teachers including the petitioner. The copy of the approval letter is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It appears that when the salary has not been paid to the petitioner from 31.3.1994, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15402 of 1997 which has been disposed of vide order dated 9.5.1997 directing the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within a time bound period. By the order dated 11.2.1997, the District Social Welfare Officer, Mau has observed that the petitioner was appointed on 10.8.1993 along with Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey prior to inclusion of institution under the grant-in-aid. By the letter dated 26.6.1994 their appointments have been approved by the District Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Mau and her appointment is in accordance to rule and accordingly held that they are entitled to continue in service. It is the case of the petitioner that she has received salary upto the period of 1996 and thereafter the payment of salary has been stopped. When the payment of salary has been stopped, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the direction to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner from month to month also pay the arrears of salary from March, 1996 and further not to appoint any person on the post of petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the institution. Though the petitioner has impleaded District Social Welfare Officer, Mau and Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mau but he has not impleaded the State of U.P. through Secretary, Social Welfare Department U.P., Lucknow and the Director of Social Welfare U.P., Lucknow.

(3.) Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged.