The Allahabad High Court, while delivering an important judgment in a decades-old education service dispute, has held that teachers cannot be deprived of pension, gratuity and salary arrears on the basis of management infighting, administrative apathy or inquiries conducted after several years.
The Court observed that:
“The State, having accepted their services and paid them for decades, cannot now be permitted to deny retiral benefits by reopening settled issues or by placing reliance on subsequent administrative inquiries. Equity, fairness and good conscience clearly demand that the appellants are held entitled to their consequential service and retiral benefits.”
The above observation was made by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi while allowing the special appeal filed by Singasan Sharma and others.
According to the facts of the case, the Junior High School established in the year 1962-63 under Shiksha Pracharani Sabha, Srinagar, Ballia is a society registered on 22.04.1963. This institution was initially granted temporary recognition till 1976 and permanent recognition was accorded in 1977. Thereafter, Singasan Sharma, Ram Kumar Ram and Girja Shankar Pandey were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the year 1972, all of whom possessed the requisite qualifications.
In fact, in the year 1982, the Committee of Management of the concerned Junior High School split into two rival factions. Both groups made appointments at their own level, which gave rise to the question as to which committee’s appointments were valid. Due to this management dispute, the services and salaries of the teachers were repeatedly brought under a cloud of doubt.
The Court emphasized that:
“………..the appointments of the appellants were approved by the competent authority and that they continued to discharge their duties for decades, during which period their salaries were paid from the State exchequer after the institution was brought within the purview of the Payment of Salaries Act.”
The High Court also noted that the issue of management dispute and appointments had already been finally settled by the judgment dated 26 November 1998, which was upheld in Special Appeal in the year 2003 and attained finality upon dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court in the year 2007. Despite this, on the basis of an administrative inquiry conducted during a Public Interest Litigation relating to scholarship and mid-day meal matters, salaries were stopped in the year 2015, which the Court termed as Contempt of Court.
Objecting strongly to the arbitrary and illegal attitude of the administration, the Court observed that:
“Subsequent administrative inquiries, including those arising out of a Public Interest Litigation, could not have the effect of reopening issues already settled by binding judicial pronouncements. Once judicial finality had been reached, the Director of Education lacked jurisdiction to negate the appointments or to stop salary on the basis of a general inquiry report although High Court having jurisdiction can examine all such actions which was required to be seen for the adjudication.”
The Court strongly ruled that pension and gratuity are not charity, but accrued statutory rights. The State cannot place the burden of the lapses of its own officers or the management upon employees. Depriving teachers or their families of salary, pension and gratuity after decades of service is unjust.
Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the Court held that,
“………..once an appointment is approved and the teacher has worked for years, salary cannot be withheld merely on the basis of procedural lapses or alleged irregularities attributable to the management or the authorities. It was further held that the State cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own lapse, or that of its officers, in granting approval and thereafter deny salary and service benefits. The Court emphasised that a teacher who is not at fault cannot be penalised for alleged mistakes of the management, especially when the employee has in fact rendered service and the employer has enjoyed the benefit thereof.”
Finally, the Court set aside the order of the Single Judge which had denied retiral benefits, and directed the State Government to release all outstanding salary arrears to the concerned teachers or their legal heirs. Pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits were directed to be determined and paid with interest within three months.
However, the Court rejected a recall application filed after several years relating to another teacher, Lallan Tiwari, holding that the matter had already attained judicial finality and could not be reopened.
Accordingly, all the other intra-court appeals and miscellaneous applications therein are disposed of.
Case: Singasan Sharma vs State Of Up And 3 Others
