State of Uttarakhand and Others vs Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal and Another

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—The writ petitioner/respondent contended in the writ petition that he had been appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the primary school Thakla Kot District Bageshwar and was working there since 13th August, 1999. When the writ petition was finally heard and decided, the said contention was not accepted by the Court. On the other hand, the Court held that the said appointment was an illegal appointment. On the writ petition an interim order was passed on 14th March, 2001, in terms whereof, the writ petitioner/respondent was directed to be paid remuneration payable to Shiksha Mitras. The said interim order was ultimately vacated on 15th July, 2008. When the writ petition was finally decided by the judgment and order under appeal, it appears that the learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, was under the impression that the petitioner/respondent had worked as Shiksha Mitra from 14th March, 2001 to 15th July, 2008 and, accordingly, while concluding the matter directed payment of remuneration for the said period. After the order under appeal was passed, a review application was filed before the learned Single Judge by the appellant, wherein it was contended that no service was rendered by the petitioner/respondent during the period between 14th March, 2001 and 15th July, 2008 and accordingly he was not entitled to receive any remuneration. The review petition was dismissed in limine without calling for any affidavit. Hence, the present appeal.

In the appeal it has been specifically contended by the appellant that the petitioner/respondent did not serve as Shiksha Mitra during the period 14th March, 2001 and 15th July, 2008 and accordingly is not entitled to any remuneration at all. This specific assertion has been denied generally. However, the petitioner/respondent has produced a series of certificates issued purportedly by the Principals of the School showing that the petitioner had served continuously since 13th August, 1999 until 17th July, 2008. According to the appellant, as contended in its rejoinder affidavit, these certificates should not be relied. In the circumstances, a factual dispute has cropped up as to whether in fact the petitioner/respondent discharged duties of Shiksha Mitra at the School in question during the period between 14th March, 2001 and 15th July, 2008.

The said dispute be sorted out by the District Magistrate, Bageshwar, as suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondent/petitioner. The District Magistrate, Bageshwar is accordingly directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the Additional District Education Officer, Bageshwar and thereupon to conclude the matter and send his report to the Director of Education, Uttarakhand. In the event it is found by the District Magistrate that the petitioner did discharge his duties during the period in question, the remuneration therefore be paid to the petitioner/respondent and the petitioner/respondent, on the basis of such decision, be entitled to withdraw the money already deposited with this Court in connection with Contempt Petition No. 277/2010. It is made clear that apart from hearing the parties named above, the District Magistrate shall be entitled to make such other enquiry or enquiries, as he may deem fit and proper in order to ascertain the truth.

In the event it is reported by the District Magistrate that the petitioner/respondent did not serve as Shiksha Mitra in the School in question during the relevant period, it shall be open to the Director of Education, on the strength of the report of the District Magistrate, to approach this Court seeking permission to obtain refund of the amount deposited by the State in the aforementioned Contempt Petition. Until the matter is sorted out thus, the Registrar General, High Court, is directed to ensure deposit of the money deposited in connection with the aforementioned Contempt Petition with a Nationalized Bank for earning interest. The interest to be earned on such deposit shall enure to the benefit of the successful party. We direct the District Magistrate, Bageshwar to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of service of a copy of this order upon him.