सत्र लाभ लेने के लिए दाखिल रिट और उस पर अवमानना की कार्यवाही के बाद अध्यापक को मिला सत्र लाभ : क्लिक कर कोर्ट का आदेश और बीएसए का आदेश पत्र भी देखें |
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3679 of 2015
Petitioner :- Shietla Prasad Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.(Basic Edu.) Lko.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.B.S.Rathor
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking continuance in service till the end of Academic Session, i.e. 31st March.
Earlier the Academic Session, as defined in Rule 2 (aa) of the Rule 29 of the 1981 Rules, commenced from 1st of July and ended on 30th June thereafter. Based on the aforesaid provision Rule 29 of the 1981 Rules provided that if the date of retirement of the Head Master or the Assistant Teacher of a recognized school falls on or after July to during the Academic Session, then he shall retire on 30th June following next after the said date.
Now, by means of the Government Order dated 9.12.2014 period of Academic Session has been changed. With effect from 2015-16 the Academic Session has commenced from 1st April and shall end on 31st March following next after the said date. The dates mentioned in Rule 29(1) have a rational co-relation to the Academic Session. The object of the Rule is to ensure that teaching of students should not suffer on account of retirement of teachers in mid Academic Session. Once the period of Academic Session has changed from 1st July to 30th June to 1st April to 31st March, the logical corollary of it is that any teacher whose date of retirement falls during the changed Academic Session, shall be entitled to continue till the end of the Session. This is how Rule 29 has to be read in the changed circumstances. The dates mentioned therein, in the absence of an amendment, have to be read down and understood in context of the changed Academic Session, otherwise the provision would be rendered irrational and will lead to absurdity.
The contention of the learned standing counsel based on para 3 of the Government Order dated 09.12.2014 that though the period of Academic Session has changed, but this has been done only for the purposes of admission and promotion etc. of students and it has no bearing upon the continuance of the teachers, which, in view of the last line of the aforesaid para 3, continues to be governed by the earlier arrangement and this line is in consonance with the definition of Academic Session contained in Rule 2(aa) and Rule Rule 29 of the 1981 Rules, meaning thereby in spite of the aforesaid change the teachers whose date of retirement falls in mid Academic Session can continue only till 30 June, and not 31 March, 2016.
This contention prima facie is incongruous with the object of Rule 29. The dates mentioned in Rule 29 have a rational connection with the period of Academic Session. Once the period has changed and now it is from 1st April to 31st March, then Rule 29 has to be applied keeping in mind the aforesaid Session, and not otherwise. The Academic Session and continuance of teachers cannot be treated separately. The dates mentioned in Rule 29 has to have a rational connect with the Academic Session, therefore, the dates mentioned therein have to be read down as 1st of April to 31st of March, otherwise the provision will be rendered irrational and unconstitutional.
A similar change of Academic Session has been made in respect to the schools governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
In view of the above, as the petitioner's date of birth falls in mid Academic Session which has commenced from 1st April, 2015 and shall end on 31 March 2016, he is entitled to continue till the end of Academic Session.
Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.
List thereafter.
It is accordingly provided, subject to verification of the petitioner's date of birth, he be allowed to continue till the end of Academic Session i.e. 31.3.2016 and shall be paid salary regularly subject, however, to the final result of the Writ Petition. The impugned notice dated 8.4.2015 shall remain in abeyance.
Order Date :- 30.6.2015
Sachin
उक्त आदेश का अनुपालन न करने पर अवमानना याचिका की कार्यवाही फलस्वरूप अध्यापक को 31 मार्च 2016 तक कार्य करने की अनुमति मिली।
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 24
Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 1401 of 2015
Applicant :- Shietla Prasad Singh
Opposite Party :- Ramesh Yadav, Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Sultanpur
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
The petitioner is alleging willful non-compliance of the order dated 30.6.2015 passed in writ petition No. 3679 (S/S) of 2015 : Shietla Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ Court, as an interim measure, while keeping the notice dated 8.4.2015 in abeyance, provided that subject to verification of the petitioner's date of birth, he be allowed to continue till the end of academic session i.e. 31.3.2016 and shall be paid salary regularly subject. However, the same shall be subject to the final result of the writ petition.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner has served a certified copy of the order of the writ court dated 30.6.2015 along with representation dated 2.7.2015 personally to the opposite party on 2.7.2015 but till date, in pursuance to the order of the writ Court, the petitioner was not allowed to continue on the post of Head Master in Junior High School, Bramhauli, Block Dhanpatganj, Sultanpur.� Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present contempt petition, seeking appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act be taken against the opposite party for willful non-compliance of the order dated 30.6.2015.
Appreciating the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record, prima facie, a case for willful disobedience of order of the writ Court is made out.
Let notice be issued to the opposite party to appear before this court on 12.8.2015 to show cause as to why proceedings be not initiated against him under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of order dated 30.6.2015 passed in writ petition No.3679 of 2015 (S/S) : Shietla Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others.
List this case on 12.8.2015.
In the meantime, if the order of the writ court is complied within its letter and spirit and affidavit of compliance is filed, opposite party is not required to appear in person on the date fixed.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the contempt petition to learned Standing Counsel, who shall transmit the same to the opposite party along with gist of this order at the earliest for information and compliance.
Order Date :- 22.7.2015
Ajit/-
0 Comments