- (1.) THIS appeal, apart from raising a challenge to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in a matter relating to a claim of payment of salary by the respondent-petitioner as a Triple Language Teacher, also calls into question a wider issue which has been raised by the appellant State of U.P. namely that payment of salary from the State Exchequer to such teachers of unaided basic schools is inadmissible under the scheme promulgated through the Government Order dated 10th March, 1964.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal an impleadment application has been filed by twelve other similarly situate teachers in other institutions of the same district of Banda and their intervention has been permitted by the Court vide order dated 5th July, 2009. We have heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant State of UP., Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh learned counsel for the Basic Education Department, learned counsel for the respondent petitioner Sri R.K. Saini and Sri Ashok Khare Senior Advocate on behalf of the intervenors. The respondent-petitioner preferred the petition giving rise to this appeal by questioning the correctness of the order dated 9th January, 2009 whereby the Deputy Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad rejected the request of the respondent-petitioner on the ground that since there was no allocation of budget for payment of salary as claimed by the petitioner, therefore, it was not possible to make the payments as prayed for. This order was passed on a direction issued by this Court on 9.9.2008 calling upon the said authority to decide the claim of the petitioner. The order impugned also indicates that the respondent- petitioner had been paid salary for the Sessions 1998-99,2004-05 and 2005-06.
(3.) THE Court while entertaining the writ petition called upon the respondents to file their response and Mahendra Kumar Singh the Deputy Director who had passed the impugned order dated 9th January, 2009 filed his affidavit contending therein that since the institution in which the respondent-petitioner was working, is an unaided institution, and had not been brought on the grant-in-aid list, there was no liability of the State Government to extend the benefit of any payment. It was further indicated that primarily it is the responsibility and liability of the management for making payments as the earlier payments made to the respondent-petitioner were made only on release of some funds by the State Government. It has been further stated that the State Government has taken a decision to hold an inquiry, about such teachers receiving salary and working in unaided institutions or beyond the sanctioned strength in aided institutions, as in the absence of any valid sanction of budgetary allocation the payments could not have been released. Accordingly the order impugned in the writ petition was justified. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 21st April, 2009 directed impleadment of the State Government through the Principal Secretary(Finance) and also called upon him to file his affidavit. The Principal Secretary(Finance) Manjit Singh has filed his affidavit stating therein that the Finance Department, on its own, does not make any budgetary provision but does so on the basis of proposals made by the respective departments. The affidavit in Para-6 states that so far as the payments to Triple Language Formula Teachers are concerned, the same has been traditionally made under the head 'Sahayata Prapt Junior High School Evam K.G. Nursery Vidhyalayon Ko Sahayata'.;