MAHENDRA NATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioners claim that they were appointed as teachers in the additional Sections of Classes VI, VII, VIII, IX and X opened by the respondent No. 5-School (which is a minority institution under the grant-in-aid scheme of the Government). Since the salary to the teachers who were teaching in the additional sections duly approved/ sanctioned by the District Inspector of Schools was not being paid by the State Government on the ground that it was the responsibility of the management to make payment of salary to such teachers, the petitioners represented to the respondent-authorities and when their claim was not decided, they filed Writ Petition No. 35218 of 2003, which was disposed of on 4.10.2004 with the direction to the Director of Education to decide their representation with regard to payment of salary from the State funds. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Education has passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2005, whereby the claim of the petitioners has been rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. A further prayer has also been made for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State-respondents to pay salary and other benefits regularly to the petitioners alongwith arrears from the date of their appointment.

(2.) I have heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri A. K. Dubey for the respondent No. 5 institution and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

(3.) AFTER considering the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Dubey v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj, 1999 (2) AWC 962 (FB) : 1999 (1) UPLBEC 1, this Court held that it would the responsibility of the State to make payment of salary to such additional teachers who were appointed to run the approved additional classes. I do not find any reason to differ with the said judgment and as such in the present case also, since the additional classes were opened after due approval of the District Inspector of Schools, the liability for payment of salary to such teachers would be that of the State Government.