इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने बेसिक शिक्षा सचिव को जारी किया अवमानना का नोटिस
इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने अवमानना के एक मामले में बेसिक शिक्षा सचिव अजय कुमार को नोटिस जारी किया है। कोर्ट ने उन्हें आदेश के अनुपालन के लिए एक माह का समय दिया है।
यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति पंकज नकवी ने बैकुंठनाथ तिवारी की अवमानना याचिका पर दिया है। दयावंत प्राइमरी पाठशाला शुकुलगंज जौनपुर में सहायक अध्यापक बैकुंठनाथ तिवारी का कहना है कि सहायता प्राप्त विद्यालय से संबद्ध प्राथमिक विद्यालयों के अध्यापकों को भी सरकारी कोष से वेतन का हक मिलना चाहिए। इसकी के लिए याचिका दाखिल की गई थी।
याचिका पर कोर्ट ने बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग को इस मामले पर चार माह में निर्णय लेने का निर्देश दिया था। अवमानना याचिका में आरोप है कि इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया गया है। अवमानना याचिका पर अगली सुनवाई के लिए 12 सितंबर की तारीख लगाई गई है।
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 30
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3252 of 2016
Applicant :- Baikunth Nath Tiwari And 3 Ors.
Opposite Party :- Ajai Kumar, Secry., Basic Education
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwaini Mishra
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Heard Sri Vishnu Datt Tiwari, holding brief of Sri Ashwaini Mishra, learned counsel for applicant.
It is alleged that order dated 01.02.2016 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 4101 of 2016 has been wilfully and deliberately violated, despite order dated 01.02.2016 served upon the opposite party by registered post on 15.02.2016. From a perusal of the petition, a prima facie case is made out.
Issue notice to Opposite Party.
List on 12.09.2016. Opposite party need not appear at this stage.
The counter affidavit may be filed within the aforesaid period or else charges may be framed after summoning the noticee.
However, one more opportunity is granted to opposite party to comply the order within a month. In that eventuality, an affidavit of compliance may be filed.
The office may send a copy of this order along with the notice.
Order Date :- 14.7.2016
Imroz
पूर्व में दिया गया आदेश जिसका अनुपालन न करने पर अवमानना नोटिस जारी हुई-----
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4101 of 2016
Petitioner :- Baikunth Nath Tiwari And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwaini Mishra,Mrigraj Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioners are four in number. They claim that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers in Dayawant Primary Pathshala, which is attached with Rashtriya Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sukhalganj, Jaunpur. In support of the said statement the petitioner has brought on record a communication dated 09th July, 1993 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur to the Manager of the Institution.
It is stated that the petitioners' appointment was approved by the District Basic Education Officer on 13th November, 1996. A xerox copy of the said order is annexure-3 to the writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioners is that in view of the judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others, (2014) 9 SCC 692, they are entitled for their salary from the State Exchequer. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi & another v. State of U.P. & others, 2015(3) ADJ 567 (DB) has considered the decision in Pawan Kumar Divedi (supra) and the effect of the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21-A, which enjoins the State Government to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may. The Division Bench has also considered the object of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and has issued a direction to the State Government to take appropriate decision and to re-visit its policy decision in respect of the grant-in-aid to the unaided institutions, which are providing education, in terms of Article 21-A of the Constitution.
Having due regard to the facts of the case, in my view, the ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the first respondent to consider the cause of the petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of communication of this order.
Needless to say that this Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the case. The State shall pass the order independently and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.2.2016
DS/-
