AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Notice on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel whereas notice on behalf of the opposite party No. 5 has been accepted by Mr. Gauri Shanker Maurya, Advocate.
Caveat was filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 6 by Mr. Som Kartik, however, Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No. 6 and files Vakalatnama, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the signature of Smt. Shanti Devi was certified by the order dated 20.5.2011 by DIOS, however, by the impugned order dated 24.5.2011 the said order dated 20.5.2011 has been cancelled without any notice or opportunity to the Petitioner.
It is further submitted that Smt. Shanti Devi was working as Manager of the Institution even prior to 20.5.2011 and the salaries of the teachers and other staff of the Institution were disbursed with the signature of Smt. Shanti Devi and BSA for the last twenty years. Due to the impugned order, the salary of the teachers and other staff of the Institution for the month of March-2011, April-2011 and May-2011 could not be paid.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 6 submits that there is a dispute in the Committee of Management of the Institution in question and earlier the Deputy Registrar by order dated 10.12.2010 had referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. The order dated 10.12.2010 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 7 (M/S) of 2011 which was stayed by the order dated 05.1.2011.
It is further submitted that by order dated 27.12.2010, DIOS had written a letter to the BSA that there appears to be dispute in the Committee of Management, therefore, the salary should be paid by single operation.
His further submission is that since the Institution is Intermediate, therefore, it is governed by the Intermediate Act, as such the DIOS is the competent authority.
In reply, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Institution in question is under grant in aid up to Junior High School, therefore, the salary is to be paid with the signature of BSA under the U.P. Junior High School Payment of Salary to the Teachers and other Employees Act, 1978. The DIOS has no right to review its own order and the impugned order is bad in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Gauri Shankar Rai and Ors. v. Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey, D.I.O.S. Ballia and Ors. (1984 UPLBEC 166) as no opportunity or notice was issued before cancellation of the order by which the signature of the Manager was certified.
The Institution is run by the Committee of Management through Manager and Smt. Shanti Devi is managing the affairs of the Institution prior to 20.5.2011.
Prima facie, case for interim relief is made out in view of the fact that the order impugned does not disclose the alleged illegality or infirmity in the order dated 20.5.2011 and no opportunity or notice was issued before canceling the order dated 20.5.2011.
The opposite parties are directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks.
In case counter affidavit is filed, Petitioners may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Meanwhile, till the next date of listing the operation and enforcement of the impugned order dated 24.5.2011 shall remain stayed.