Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri K.R. Singh, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as also Sri B.P. Singh for the opposite parties.
(2.) On 19 February 2018, this Court passed a detailed order which reads thus: "Leave to amend has been granted today. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, the learned counsel states that he was instructed and authorized on behalf of the erstwhile Secretary and that presently he is not in receipt of any instructions or authorization from the newly impleaded party. The order-sheet reveals that on 06.03.2017 the Court had noticed that the order of the writ Court had not been complied with. It had accordingly proceeded to call upon the opposite party no. 5 to appear on the next date for framing of charge. On 10.04.2017 Shri B.P.Singh made a statement that actual payment shall be made within a period of three weeks from today. In the order of the Court dated 01.05.2017 the Court again noticed that it was prima facie satisfied that the order of the writ Court had not been complied with. The observations made in the order of the Court dated 01.05.2017 was with respect to the affidavit filed by the then Secretary (Basic Education) in which he took the position that the matter of the present applicants had been re-scrutinized by the Regional Level Committee and a decision dated 24.04.2017 taken. This affidavit and the observations of the Court assume significance since the Regional Level Committee has taken a decision that applicants no. 1 to 6 alone are entitled to payment of salary under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978. Insofar as the applicants no. 7, 8 and 9 are concerned, the opposite parties has taken a decision that bearing in mind the strength of students as was obtained during the course of inspection on 18.04.2017 and on subsequent dates thereafter, the institution was entitled to have only six Assistant Teachers on its rolls. The second ground which is urged to deny the claim of applicants no. 7, 8 and 9 is that their appointments had not been accorded approval by the competent authority. The Court notices that this petition has been pending on the board of this Court since 2015 and that despite assurances given the stand taken by the respondents now rests upon the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee in 2017. In order to prima facie evaluate the correctness of the position taken it becomes necessary to note that the writ petition preferred by the applicants was disposed of on 25.08.1999 with the Court's recording that the applicants would have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Sharma and others vs. Director of Education (Basic) and others,1999 2 AWC 1286 as well as the order passed on 21.05.1999 in Writ Petition No. 33162 of 1997. It is pertinent to note that Writ Petition No. 33162 of 1997 was disposed of on 21.05.1999 with the following observations:- "In view of the aforesaid decision, this writ petition is disposed of with the same direction i.e. the respondents shall pay the current salary to the teaching staff of primary section attached to Junior High School in question from the day payment of salary Act, 1978 was made applicable to the Institution in question." It is not disputed that the Special Appeal preferred by the State against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 25.08.1999 was dismissed on 19.07.2004. A Civil Appeal was thereafter taken being Civil Appeal No. 3989 of 2006 which was also dismissed on 02.09.2017 following the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench on the issue of the applicability of the provisions of the 1978 Act to the attached primary sections. In none of the decisions rendered by this Court as affirmed by the Supreme Court and which have since attained finality, were the respondents granted the liberty, at least prima facie, to undertake a fresh exercise with regard to the claim of the applicants. As noticed above, the writ petitions were allowed without reservation and in unequivocal terms that the applicants would be entitled for salary from the date of application of the 1978 Act. In view thereof this Court is unable to appreciate the backdrop in which the order dated 24.04.2017 was passed or even the background in which such an exercise was undertaken. This issue assumes significance since the claim of the applicants no. 7, 8 and 9 which was duly recognized as far back as on 25.08.1999 is sought to be negatived for the first time on the basis of the decision taken on 07.04.2017. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the opposite parties must be called upon to show cause why charges be not framed against them. Include in the list of 07.03.2018 along with connected cases."
(3.) The issue itself arises in the backdrop of a writ petition preferred by the applicants coming to be disposed of on 25 August 1999 in the following terms: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. Despite the order dated 6.7.1999, counter affidavit has not been filed by the learned Standing Counsel. The respondent no. 5 has filed counter affidavit supporting the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioners state that the question involved in this case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Sharma & others Vs. Director of Education (Basic) U.P. and others, 1998 2 AWC 1286 and this case is also covered by the decision of this Court dated 21.5.1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33162 of 1997 (Committee of Management and another versus State of U.P.and another). In view of above, this writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms and with the same directions as contained in the judgment of this Court dated 21.5.1999 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33162 of 1997.";