RAMESH CHANDRA YADAVS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri I. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri O. P. Slngh, learned standing counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1. 2, 3, 4 and 5. The respondent No. 6 has not responded to the notice Issued by the Court.

(2.) The petitioners, who are either teachers or employees of Sri Ram Uchhattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya. Para, Post-Kandaur-via-Kurara, district Hamirpur, the Committee of Management of which is respondent No. 6 in this petition, [hereinafter called the Institution), feel aggrieved by the order dated 12th April, 1989, passed by the Accounts Officer, office of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Hamirpur, the respondent No. 5, a copy whereof is Annexure-3 to the petition. By this order, the respondent No. 5 has declined to pay the salaries and other emoluments to the petitioners, in view of the fact that the Institution had been accorded permission to start High School Classes vide order dated 4th April, 1989 with effect from 1st March, 1989, and as such the teachers and the employees of the Institution have ceased to be within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978, (U. P. Act No. 6 of 1979), hereinafter referred to, as the Act). Aggrieved by the order dated 12th April, 1989. aforesaid, the petitioners have instituted this petition in this Court praying for quashing ol" the same besides praying for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to them at least such salaries and emoluments as they were getting at the time of upgradation of the Institution including the arrears since March, 1989 until the Institution is brought within the purview of Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act. 1971. (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971). They have also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to bring the Institution within the purview of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971 by giving it maintenance grant to the level of Higher Secondary Schools, but the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners does not press this relief.

(3.) The respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit. Therefore, the facts stated in the petition remain uncontroverted.