MUKTESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of this case that on a vacancy having occurred on the retirement of a L.T.Grade teacher in the college of the Respondent no.4, the management gave an advertisement for filling up such vacancy, in response to which the petitioner and other candidates had applied and the petitioner was selected. Thereafter papers for such appointment of the petitioner were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for grant of financial approval. Then on 19.4.1990 the District Inspector of Schools granted financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner on adhoc basis till regular selection was made. In pursuance thereof the committee of management gave appointment letter to the petitioner on 20.4.1990 as a L.T.Grade teacher on substantive post. Then on 21.4.1990 the petitioner joined his duties on such post and was being paid his salary. On 15.2.1992 some enquiry was initiated with regard to the appointment of the petitioner and consequently the payment of salary to the petitioner was stopped. Thereafter on enquiry it was found by the Senior Finance and Accounts Officer as well as Chief Accounts Officer in the office of the Directorate of Education that no irregularity was there in the appointment of the petitioner and thus a direction was issued to the District Inspector of Schools to make the payment of salary to the petitioner. Consequently on 11.10.1994 the District Inspector of Schools released the salary of the petitioner. Then again on 26.9.1995 the District Inspector of Schools stopped payment of salary to the petitioner with effect from July, 1995 on the same ground of there being irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner and the order dated 11.10.1994 was withdrawn. Thereafter the Accounts Officer furnished his fresh report dated 25.6.1997 stating therein that no irregularity was found in the appointment of the petitioner and that salary be released in his favour. Even then the District Inspector of Schools proceeded to further inquire into the matter and raised certain queries from the committee of management on 7.8.1998, to which a reply was given on 10.8.1998. In the aforesaid circumstances when the salary of the petitioner was not paid, he has filed this writ petition with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay his regular salary as well as his arrears of salary from the month of July, 1995 till date.

(2.) I have heard Sri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided at the admission stage.

(3.) Even after the grant of financial approval by the District inspector of Schools on 19.4.1990 when the payment of salary of the petitioner was stopped in February, 1992, an enquiry was conducted and when it was found that there was no irregularity in such appointment, the salary of the petitioner was released by the District Inspector of Schools in the year 1994. It appears that the District Inspector of Schools for no valid reason again stopped the payment of salary of the petitioner in 1995. It is admitted to the respondents that the Accounts Officer has submitted his report dated 25.6.1997 stating that there was no irregularity found in the appointment of the petitioner and that the salary should be paid to him. Not once but twice the District Inspector of Schools had been satisfied - once at the time of initially granting financial approval on 19.4.1990 and then on 11.10.1994 which order was passed after the enquiry.