Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D. K. Srivastava who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 3 and learned standing counsel.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent No. 3 has already been dismissed but neither there is any material nor any statement that the dismissal of the respondent No. 3 has been approved by the District Inspector of Schools, which under law is required to be proved. In this view of the matter, the letters dated 12th November, 2002 and 14th February, 2002, were issued containing the direction either to submit the salary bill of respondent No. 3 or to show-cause. The management has submitted its reply dated 23.11.2002 to the aforesaid letters taking the stand that since the management has already dismissed the respondent No. 3, his salary bill is not sent. On the aforesaid matter, the District Inspector of Schools on the report of Accounts Officer dated 31.3.2003 on which the impugned order dated 31.3.2003, has been passed directing the payment of salary of respondent No. 3 under Section 5 (1) of Payment of Salary Act, 1971 upto February, 2003 by means of single operation. It is this order which is under challenge here. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to procedure prescribed in Regulation 31 of Chapter-III of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, since it does not require forwarding of the papers and the enquiry report, etc. in the matters of Class-IV employees, therefore, the provision regarding prior approval for dismissal of Class-IV employee is contrary to the law. The aforesaid contention is contrary to the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Principal Rastriya Inter College, Bali Nichlaul, District Maharajganj and another v. District Inspector of Schools and others, 2000 (1) AWC 831 : 2000 (1) ESC 704 (All). Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the Division Bench has not considered the effect of Regulation 31 qua the change of the procedure regarding Class-IV employee. I do not agree with the aforesaid statement in view of the Division Bench decision referred to above which is binding on me. Learned standing counsel has pointed out that since the order relates to payment of salary upto February, 2003, which is already over, this Court should oust the petitioner only on this ground. In my opinion, this contention is liable, to be rejected and is hereby rejected.
(3.) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition challenging the order dated 31.3.2003, has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is directed that till the District INspector of Schools takes a decision with regard to the matter of approval or disapproval of dismissal of respondent No. 3, no payment of salary shall be made to the respondent No. 3. Petitioner is directed to furnish all the relevant materials within four weeks from today on which District INspector of Schools shall take decision regarding approval or disapproval regarding dismissal within six weeks thereafter. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed.;