Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J
1. Heard Shri Yogendra Singh Bohra, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
2. The petitioners have claimed that they were duly appointed by a due process on 18.11.2006 and 18.12.2006 respectively as Assistant Teachers in concerned Basic School.
3. It appears that concerned school was brought into Grant-in-Aid in 2006 but petitioners’ name were not submitted in the list, submitted by the school, probably on a ground that their selection process was underway at that time. The writ petition is silent so far as any attempt undertaken by the petitioners for their financial approval from 2006 till at least 2013.
4. It further appears that in 2014, claim of the petitioners was considered for first time. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has referred a communication dated 19.12.2014, annexed along with this writ petition, issued by Special Secretary, Uttar Pradesh and addressed to Director Education Basic, Uttar Pradesh, that claim of petitioners to grant salary from Grant-in-Aid be considered within 15 days. The relevant part of said communication is mentioned hereinafter:
2- इस संबंध में मुझे आपसे यह कहने का निदेश हुआ है कि प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में शासन स्तर पर सम्पन्न बैठक दिनांक 27.11.2014 में विचार-विमर्श के क्रम में यह मत स्थिर किया गया कि “ एम०आर० में 02 रिक्त शिक्षकों के पदों पर चयन/नियुक्ति की कार्यवाही प्रचलित/वर्णित थी, प्रश्नगत शिक्षक नियमानुसार अनुमोदित/नियुक्त है, और अद्यतन विद्यालय में कार्यरत हैं, तो दोनों शिक्षकों की वेतन अनुमन्यता के संबंध में कार्यवाही कराकर 15 दिन के अन्दर शासन को अवगत करायें।”
5. Learned counsel further submitted that thereafter matter remained pending before Divisional Approval Committee and belatedly on 13.08.2018 i.e. after four years of above referred communication a decision was taken to grant salary to all petitioners from Grant-in-Aid from the date of its approval i.e. 13.08.2018 and not from the date of their respective appointment made in year 2006 or at least from 27.11.2014 i.e. from the date above referred communication was sent though taken note in the order. Learned counsel has referred the following part of the said order:
"शिक्षा निदेशक (बेसिक) द्वारा शासन को प्रेषित अपने पत्र संख्या सामान्य (1) बेसिक/3035/2017-18 दिनांक 10-10-2017 में भी उक्त तथ्यों को अंकित करते हुए उल्लिखित किया है कि " जहां तक श्रीमती मीनाक्षी शर्मा की योग्यता बी०ए० बी०एड० और श्री पुष्पेन्द्र शर्मा की योग्यता एम०एस०सी० बी०एड० जो तत्समय नियमावली 1978 के अनुसार अर्ह योग्यता थी का प्रश्न है, नियमावली 1978 पंचम संशोधन के फलस्वरूप शासनादेश संख्या 1512/79-6-2998-28(35)/01 दिनांक 12 जून 2008 द्वारा स०अ० के पद के लिए अन्य योग्यताओं सहित बी०एड० की योग्यता भी सम्मिलित की गयी है। तथापि शासन के उक्त संदर्भित पत्र दिनांक 19 दिसम्बर 2014 द्वारा बैठक के उपरान्त उपरोक्त 02 शिक्षकों को नियमानुसार अनुमोदित/नियुक्त माना गया है और वेतन अनुमन्यता निर्गत के निर्देश भी दिये जा चुके है। जिसका अनुपालन उक्त वर्णित आपत्ति के क्रम में मण्डलीय सहायक शिक्षा निदेशक बेसिक प्रथम मण्डल मेरठ द्वारा नहीं किया गया।” मण्डल कार्यालय के अभिलेखों में 2006 में अनुदान सूची पर लिये गये विद्यालयों के जिन शिक्षकों की वेतन अनुमन्यता जारी की गयी है उनकी प्रशिक्षण योग्यता बी०एड० ही है।
उपरोक्त परिस्थितियों के दृष्टिगत श्रीमती मीनाक्षी शर्मा व श्री पुष्पेन्द्र शर्मा के वेतन अनुमन्यता जारी करने में कोई विधिक बाधा नहीं है। अतः शासन के आदेश दिनांक 19-12-2014 के क्रम में मण्डलीय वेतन अनुमन्यता समिति द्वारा श्रीमती मीनाक्षी शर्मा व श्री पुष्पेन्द्र शर्मा की वेतन अनुमन्यता तत्काल प्रभाव से पत्र निर्गमन की तिथि से जारी करने का निर्णय लिया गया। जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी गौतमबुद्धनगर इस सम्बन्ध में आवश्यक कार्यवाही करना सुनिश्चित करें। "
6. During arguments a specific query was raised to counsel for petitioners to show any provision that financial approval could be granted with retrospective effect, however, he failed to show any such provision.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners has also submitted that a positive communication was sent on 19.12.2014 to pass specific order in regard to grant of salary from Grant-in-Aid within 15 days but it was not complied with and, therefore, petitioners could not be penalized and this Court may please to pass a direction that order of granting approval will be considered at least with effect from 19.12 .2014.
8. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State has submitted that the petitioners have never approached this Court or before any concerned respondent, till impugned order was passed to expedite the matter in terms of communication dated 19.02.2014, therefore, at a belated stage without any legal provision, prayer of the petitioners may not be allowed.
9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused material available on record.
10. As referred above, argument of counsel for petitioners is to consider impugned order i.e. to grant approval for payment of salary from Grant-in-Aid retrospectively, has no legal basis since there is no such legal provision as well as no such provision is being pointed out on behalf of petitioners either, therefore, prayer sought cannot be allowed.
11. So far as argument that there was delay at least from the year 2014 till the impugned order is passed is concerned it has also no legal basis, since admittedly, petitioners have not taken any step to expedite the matter and have approached this Court only after the impugned order was passed. It is also not a case of the petitioners that they were working without any salary during said period.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, since order impugned could not be considered retrospectively and has to be considered prospectively only as well as that the petitioners were not agile towards their right and remained silent for about 4 years, therefore, I do not find that there is any illegality in the impugned order.
13. This writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
