Read Order: Man Singh v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary & Ors

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, April 4, 2022: The State cannot take any work from any employee without payment of any salary, the Supreme Court has held while describing as “wholly illegal and untenable” an order of the Uttar Pradesh government passed in the year 1998 whereby a man was directed to be removed from the post of Principal of a school and the money paid to him as remuneration for 24 years of service be recovered on the ground that his appointment to the post was irregular.

“… the appellant has worked for almost 24 years before the services came to be cancelled for the reason that he is relative of the member of the Selection Committee,” observed a Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian.

“We find that the High Court has failed to consider the fact that even if the appointment was irregular, the appellant had discharged the duties and in lieu of duties, he had to be paid. The State cannot take any work from any employee without payment of any salary,” it said.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as a principal in the year 1974-75 when junior High School was upgraded as High School and was recognized by the State Government. 

An order dated December 24, 1998 of cancellation of appointment of the appellant as Principal was passed on account of violation of Chapter 3 Rule 4 of U.P. Educational Manual which prescribes that a close relation mentioned in said Rule cannot be appointed as Principal. 

The appellant worked for almost 24 years before the services came to be cancelled for the reason that he is relative of the member of the Selection Committee.

The order dated December 24, 1998 also recorded that the money be recovered from the appellant which has been paid to him, as a result of his irregular appointment for the post of Principal.

“Consequently, we find the order passed by the State Government dated 24.12.1998 is wholly illegal and untenable. The High Court should have been appreciated the facts in the proper perspective and should have set aside the same. It appears that after the order was passed on 24.12.1998, the appellant was not working on the post of Principal,” it further said.

The Top Court thus set aside the order dated December 24, 1998 and directed the respondents to treat appellant as retired on the date of the order and to pay pensionary benefits, if any, due to him for the services rendered.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment