RAJENDRA PRASHAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5891 of 1983 dated 26th September, 1986 (Rajendra Prasad v. Kayastha Pathshala), reported in 1987 Education Cases 313 SC can be given effect to by a relief in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or the petitioner must be relegated to avail of the remedy of execution proceedings in the Civil Court, and whether the petitioner was entitled to entire arrears of his salary from the State of U. P. and the District Inspector of Schools, respondent nos. 1 and 2 and from Kulbhaskar Ashram Agriculture College, Allahabad, respondent no. 4, (for short the College) since the date he was suspended, as the suspension order has been held to be illegal, and whether the order of suspension should continue till date for about twenty one years without framing charges and without holding any enquiry particularly when no opportunity of hearing was given to him, are the questions for our determination in this petition filed by the petitioner for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of entire arrears of his salary accrued to him as the order of suspension, was illegal and by way of punishment without framing any charge and without affording any opportunity, could not be deemed to continue till date.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present petition present an interesting but a decimal chequered history prevailing in the educational institutions. THE petitioner obtained a degree in M. Sc. in Chemistry. He had requisite qualification for the appointment as lecturer, was appointed as lecturer in Chemistry on 15-7-62 in the Kulbhaskar Ashram Agriculture Intermediate College, Allahabad, in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, (for short the Act) and the regulations framed thereunder, in the present petition the controversy is about the order of suspension dated 30-12-65/7-1-66. It is noticeable that prior to that the petitioner was suspended on 20-2-64. For that he had to file a Civil Suit No. 193 of 19b4 (Rajendra Pd. v. Kayastha Pathshala) in the Court of Munsif West, Allahabad, seeking a declaration and injunction that the order of suspension dated 20-2-64 was illegal. That suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. But the First Appeal (F. A. No. 583 of 1965) was allowed on 7-12-65 and the order of suspension dated 20-2-64 was held to be illegal. THE Second Appeal (No. 1111 of 1966) filed by the defendant Kayastha Pathshala against the petitioner was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 8-4-68 (Annexure-2 to the petition). Even prior to that within a couple of days from the date of petitioner's appointment his services were attempted to be terminated by the Vice-President Incharge of the College. THE petitioner had to file Suit No. 482 of 1963 (Rajendra Prasad v. Kayastha Pathshala). But by order dated 6-9-63 the order of termination was withdrawn by the Kayastha Pathshala. That order of termination was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools and was withdrawn. It is the third inning in which the management again suspended the petitioner by the aforesaid order and the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 48 of 1966 (Rajendra Prasad v. Kayastha Pathshala) for a declaration that the aforesaid order of suspension dated 30-12-65/7-1-66 (for short the suspension order), was void and without jurisdiction. On 31-3-69 the 1st Additional Munsif decreed the suit holding the suspension order of the petitioner to be illegal, void and without jurisdiction. THE defendant respondent, Kayastha Pathshala preferred an appeal (Appeal No. 117 of 1969) against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif. THE said appeal was transferred to the Additional Civil Judge, who allowed the same by his judgment and decree dated 20-8- 70, holding the suspension order to be legal. THE petitioner filed a Second Appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 2038 of 1970, and was pending in this Court.

(3.) THE petitioner's Second Appeal No. 2038 of 1970 was dismissed, whereas the First Appeal No. 450 of 1982 preferred by the Kayastha Pathshala was allowed. That first appeal No. 450 of 1982 arose out of the suit filed by the plaintiff, the present petitioner, for recovery of arrears of pay Rs. 7812.92, including Dearness Allowance and other emoluments along with the amount of Provident Fund since 2-2-64 to 20-2-1967 which was decreed by the trial court. Against that the management of Kayastha Pathshala filed a First Appeal No. 268 of 1969, which was got transferred to this Court while hearing the aforesaid Second Appeal and that First Appeal transferred from the District Judge was numbered in this Court as First Appeal No. 450 of 1982. As stated above, the Second Appeal was dismissed and the First Appeal filed by the management of the Kayastha Pathshala was allowed dismissing the suit of the petitioner for arrears of salary. THE petitioner preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 5891 of 1983 and was decided on 26th September, 1986, reported in 1987 Education Cases 313 (Supra).