Smt. Rehana Begum vs State of U.P. and Others

Ravi S. Dhavan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, U.P.

The short question in the Writ Petition is that the Petitioner Smt. Rehana Begum whose termination of services had been disapproved by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 21 February, 1992 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition) has not received her salary, despite the fact, she continues in service.

Once, the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari exercises his power not to approve the termination of services of the Petitioner, the management is further obliged to take the teacher into service.

Passing an order, disapproving the termination of services by management is not enough. The law expects that the consequential effect wilt be put in motion by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari in such cases. The Court is expressing it''s concern on the non-payment of salary to teachers whose appointment has been approved and the termination of their services has been disapproved, by the Authority whose job it is to do so. In reference to the same institution the Hon''ble S.C. Verma, J., had given directions by his judgment dated 8 February, 1993 (Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition), Kumari Achchibi and Ors. v. State of, U.P. and Ors. This is in itself should have been enough guidance for the state Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to (a) enforce their orders and (b) not permit their orders to be compromised for one reason or other.

For instance the excuse to delay the execution of their own orders the Respondents suggest that as the school has been upgraded to the status of a higher secondary school there is a change in the regulations which will apply for the payment of salary. This is red-tape. The fact of the matter is that once the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari has declined to grant approval on the termination of the Petitioner''s services, she shall continue in service and, consequentially, be entitled to salary. Whoever be the Authority whether the Basic Shiksha Adhikari or the District Inspector of Schools either or both are obliged to act and ensure the payment of the Petitioner''s salary.

For the same reasons as given by the Hon''ble S.C. Verma, J., this Court expects that the State Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will give effect to their orders.

In the light of above observations, the grievance of the Petitioner succeeds, The petition is allowed, but without order on costs.