DINESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was presented on 19.7.1996 and till date no counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

(2.) AT the time of filing of the writ. petition, petitioner No. 1 was working as Research Assistant and has now left the job. Petitioner No. 2 is working as librarian; petitioner No. 3 is working as clerk and petitioner No. 4 is working as peon in the Ayurvedic Evam Tibbi Academy, U.P. Rajkiya Ayurved Maha Vidyalaya Bhawan, Tulsidas Marg, Lucknow, hereinafter referred to as the Academy. The Government of Uttar Pradesh vide G.O. dated 28.2.1950 sanctioned the establishment of the Academy. By a formal Government order, various posts were created and staff was appointed against the posts created and sanctioned by the Government. The petitioners were engaged in the Academy on the posts indicated above. The members of the staff were given parity with the Government servants and they were treated as employees of the Local Bodies, vide Government Order dated 20.3.1958. It was the responsibility of the State Government to ensure proper functioning of the Academy by providing necessary funds as grant -in -aid and to make payment of salary to the staff regularly every month. These conditions have been spelt out in the Government order dated 17.1.1962, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -7 to the writ petition.

(3.) THIS writ petition is pending disposal for the last about ten years. As per order sheet, several dates were fixed but no efforts were made to file counter -affidavit by the respondents. In view of this, no option is left with the court except to treat the averments made by the petitioners as uncontroverted in view of the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Choksi Tube Co. Limited v. Union of India : 1998(97)ELT404(SC) and Naseem Bano v. State of U.P. and Ors. : (1994)ILLJ84SC , in which the Hon. Supreme Court of India has laid down the law that where a plea taken is not controverted in reply, it amounts to admission of the plea. However, learned standing counsel has requested the Court to grant one more opportunity to file counter -affidavit. Since the petitioners No. 2 and 3, as has been informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, are still in employment and employer -employee relations are continuing, in these circumstances, payment of salary is to be made to the employees. The respondents cannot be permitted to take Begar from the petitioners as the same is now prohibited in this country. Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be allowed further time to file counter -affidavit and to keep this litigation alive for years to come. This Court is already burdened with more than six lac cases, which are awaiting disposal.