ARUN TANDON, J. - (1.) THIS Court while considering the present writ petition filed by Shri Sunder Lal Verma noticed that the Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik) U.P., Allahabad on 21.06.2011 forwarded a letter to the Director of Education (Madhyamik) stating therein that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T.Grade) on 22.07.1971 at a time when the institution was only High School. The institution was granted recognition for intermediate classes in 1975. In terms of the Government Order dated 22.02.1990, on imparting education in the subject of Sanskrit for 10 years to Intermediate Classes Shri Verma could be granted Lecturer's Grade w.e.f. 01.01.1986 only and that in terms of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000, he could be designated as Lecturer (Sanskrit) with effect from the said date after abolition of the L.T. Grade post. It was, therefore, recorded that grant of designation of Lecturer and salary since 1980 and thereafter grant of Selection Grade and promotional pay scale to Shri Verma was illegal. The excess paid was liable to be recovered.
(2.) THE Court required that an affidavit may be filed disclosing the name of the officers who were responsible for such wrongful fixation. The Director of Education in response filed an affidavit before this Court on 21.10.2011. It was disclosed that L.T. Grade post was upgraded to that of Lecturer by the then District Inspector of Schools namely Yashwant Singh Negi vide letter dated 29.11.1980 w.e.f. 01.11.1980 and on that basis Shri Verma was granted the designation and pay scale of Lecturer w.e.f. 01.11.1980. He was granted Selection Grade by the then District Inspector of Schools i.e. Hari Kishan Gosain vide order dated 26.03.1991. That Shri Verma retired on attaining the age of 60 years on 30.06.2008. In paragraph 6 it was stated by the Director that the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly by means of his letter dated 24.05.2004, dated 18.03.2007, dated 25.06.2007 and dated 10.01.2011 required the Director of Education to take appropriate action in the matter of illegal fixation of salary and grant of designation as Lecturer to Shri Verma with reference to the powers vested in him under Section 16-E (10) of the Intermediate Education Act. It was further stated that for calculation of excess salary paid a five members committee has been constituted under order dated 18.10.2011. This Court was surprised to note the aforesaid facts. Therefore, on 21.01.2011 passed the following order : "From paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow today, it is apparently clear that the fact qua wrongful fixation of salary of the petitioner was brought to the notice of the higher authorities under letter of the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly for the first time on 24.5.2004. Nothing was, done despite reminders dated 18.3.2007, 25.6.2010 and 10.1.2011. It is only on 21.6.2011 that for the first time Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Allahabad has recorded that such fixation of salary of petitioner was bad. Absolutely, no explanation has been furnished as to why action was not taken immediately on the receipt of the letter dated 24.5.2004. Officers have been sleeping, over the matter for more than 7 years. Copy of the letter dated 24.5.2004, 18.3.2007 and 25.6.2010 must be brought on record including the name of the Officers who were holding the relevant post as per the letters referred to above. List on 16.11.2011." Today an affidavit has been filed by the Director and it is now admitted on record that no action worth its name was taken by the Director against Shri Verma qua grant of designation and salary as Lecturer w.e.f. 01.11.1980 despite receipt of letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 24.05.2004 and subsequent letter dated 18.05.2007 except for asking for comments and somehow or the other to prolong the proceedings so that Shri Verma may attain the age of superannuation. For years and till date the Director has not cared to pass any orders in the matter referred to him under Section 16-E (10). From the affidavit filed today, the first letter written in response to the letter dated 24.05.2004 is dated 20.03.2007 i.e. after nearly three years. The explanation furnished is that the matter was not placed before him by the 'Patal Sahayak'. Such irresponsible statement of the Director reflects upon his uncaring attitude in the matter of taking appropriate action with due diligence even where government money is involved. The Director has by his inaction created a situation where the issue of grant of wrongful designation and salary to Shri Verma as Lecturer w.e.f. 01.11.1980 has been rendered infructuous. The correspondence entered into subsequent to 2007 is also only an eye wash.
(3.) TO make the situation worst, the Director with reference to the recommendation made by the five members committee has reported to this Court under paragraph 10 of his affidavit that a sum of Rs.57,365.10 is still to be paid to Shri Verma and no money is liable to be recovered from him. In support of the said statement a chart prepared by five members committee which depicts the salary lawfully payable to Shri Verma since 1980, if he had not been wrongly granted Lecturer's grade and the salary actually paid in Lecturer's grade including the increments which have become payable under the recommendations of the 5th and 6th Pay Commission. From the summary of the chart so enclosed by the Director, it is apparently clear that following amount have been paid in excess to Shri Verma :- Sl. Period Amount (Paid in Excess) No. 1 November, 1980 to December, 1983 Rs. 1,199.90 2 January, 1984 to December, 1987 Rs. 3,910.00 3 January, 1988 to December, 1991 Rs. 7,698.00 4 January, 1992 to December, 1995 Rs.18,294.00 5 January, 2000 to December, 2003 Rs.37,031.00 This amount has admittedly been paid in excess contrary to the Government Orders applicable as admitted by the Director of Education himself. However, it has been stated that for the following period Shri Verma has been short paid the following amount :- Sl. Period Amount (Short Paid) No. 1 January, 1996 to December, 1999 Rs. 13, 217.00 2 January, 2004 to December, 2005 Rs. 4,660.00 3 January, 2006 to June, 2008 Rs.1,07,621.00 According to the Director and the team appointed by his, the total money excess paid to Shri Verma which works out to Rs.68,102.00 if deducted from the money which has been short paid and is still payable would works out to Rs.1,25,498.00 and thereafter Shri Verma is still entitled to Rs.57,396.10. This Court may record that such an stand taken by the Director virtually amounts to misleading the Court and a desperate attempt to justify the deliberate loss caused to the State exchequer. This Court will not mince words while recording that considerations other than the interest of State revenue have prevailed with the Director when he had made such an attempt before this Court. For the aforesaid finding, the reasons are as follows : (a) The major portion of salary short paid i.e. for the period January, 2006 to January, 2008 i.e. Rs.1,07,621.00 in fact represents the arrears of salary (for the said period) due because of salary revision effected in the year 2009 under 6th Pay Commission recommendation. It is not known as to whether the arrears in that regard have been released by the Government and if so in what manner it is to be paid. (b) How can any money in respect of arrears be adjusted against excess salary paid earlier unless the teacher is found in fact involved in such wrong fixation and an order in that regard is passed by the competent authority after affording opportunity of hearing to the teacher. (c) The High Court has held repeatedly that no excess salary paid, because of wrongful fixation, can be recovered from the employee unless it is found that he had misrepresented or has mislead the authorities in such wrongful fixation. (d) In the facts of this case the excess salary paid earlier to Shri Verma can be recovered from the officers responsible for such acts and omissions including the Director himself who has slept over the matter for years. (e) An average human being will understand that excess payment made to Shri Verma which was spread over nearly 20 years had conferred an illegal monetary benefit upon him, the component of interest accrued thereon would multiply the amount by nearly four times. Accountants of the education department who are well versed with the economics of money transactions have deliberately not taken care of the component of interest which is involved in the matter of excess payment to Shri Verma. Either the Director wants to shield his own incompetence for action being not taken despite the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 04.05.2004 for more than seven years as on date or else he does not understand the complications which flow from such wrongful fixation of salary. In both the circumstances he has to be dealt with by the higher officers of the State. Such deliberate efforts to cause loss to the State exchequer and further to mislead the Court cannot be permitted to go un-noticed. The Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. is directed to obtain a report from the competent Audit and Accounts Officers who may depict the loss which has been caused to the State Government because of wrongful fixation and payment of excess salary to Shri Verma including the component of interest. The Chief Secretary shall take appropriate action against the Director of Education and the other officers involved, as may be warranted under law and submit his report through a personal affidavit by 08.12.2011. Put up on 08.12.2011. Copy of the order may be issued to the Standing Counsel by 21.11.2011 for being forwarded to the Chief Secretary.;