NOORIA ARABIA ORIENTAL HIGH SCHOOL CORRESPONDENT SECRETARY SYED MOHD NASIRUDDIN JEELANI HYDERABAD Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION A P HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Correspondent/Secretary to the petitioner-school filed this writ petition questioning the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in RC.NO.26898/ E3/94 dated 24-10-1994 wherein he directed the three teachers named therein to refund excess amount credited in their account by the correspondent within 15 days along with explanation for not informing the Department about the irregular credit and misappropriation of grant-in-aid, contending that the Correspondent credited excess grant-in-aid in the names of these teachers.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner-school is admitted to grant-in-aid and as per the Grant-in-aid Code, the Management has to pay the salaries regularly to the staff working in the posts admitted to grant-in-aid and then submit teaching grant bills to the 2nd respondent for payment. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent passed an order in Rc.No.1/Audit/03/92-93 dated 30-3-1993 releasing final teaching grant for an amount of Rs. 2,53,804-20 ps. in respect of the petitioner-school during the year 1992-93. On the very next day, he passed another order in Rc.No.5/E5/TG/92-93 dated 31-3-93 wherein Advance Teaching Grant amounting to Rs. 2,53,805/- as per the Annexure enclosed to the order claiming to be Pay Revision Commission arrears subject to the adjustment after audit of accounts of the schools was sanctioned. In the Annexure, the particulars of the teachers in whose favour the amount was realeased has not been mentioned. In fact, the statement prepared and submitted by the Correspondent wherein the Bank Account Nos. were also given was simply certified by the 2nd respondent. Now it turned out that though orders were passed releasing Final Teaching grant on 30-3-1993, no cheque was issued either in favour of the Correspondent or in favour of the teachers concerned. But pursuant to second order dated 31-3-1993, a cheque was drawn in favour of the Correspondent on State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry and as stated supra, the names of the teachers and their Bank Account Nos. were also shown in the annexure.

(3.) Now, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is absolutely incorrect to state that the arrears of P.R.C. are sought to be paid to the Management, but the 2nd respondent has to release grant-in-aid payable to the Institution from 1-11-1989 to 28-2-1992. But the cheque that was sent to the Management is the cheque drawn pursuant to the order passed on30-3-1993 for an amount of Rs. 2,53,804.20 ps. That is the root cause for the entire confusion that has taken place in this case.