गोरखपुर एसडीएम व बीएसए के आदेश को हाईकोर्ट ने किया स्थगित, शिक्षिका को कोर्ट से मिली राहत
BLO बनी अध्यापिका का वेतन रोकने के आदेश पर न्यायालय का स्थगन, अगली सुनवाई 10/1/2020 को
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 55
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16433 of 2019
Petitioner :- Poonam Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Baghel
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 3 and 5 and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 27.3.1997 and is working at Purva Madhyamik Vidyalay Hajaripur, Nagar Kshetra, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to Institution). He next submitted that petitioner was given the work of Booth Level Officer for revision of Electoral Roll/Voter List, which she has properly performed, but by impugned order dated 24.9.2019 passed by respondent no. 4 and consequential order dated 28.9.2019 passed by respondent no. 5 salary of the petitioner has been stopped on the ground that she has not taken adequate interest in performing her job as Booth Level Officer for revision of electoral roll/voter list. He next submitted that aforesaid orders have been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice without issuing any show cause notice or without providing any opportunity of hearing. He next submitted that for such allegation no punishment for restraining the payment of salary can be awarded to the petitioner, therefore, impugned orders are bad in law and liable to be quashed.
Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but could not dispute the fact that no notice or opportunity has been given to the petitioner.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to respondent no. 6 returnable within six weeks.
Steps be taken within a week.
All the respondents are granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this case on 10.1.2020.
Till the next date of listing, impugned orders dated 24.9.2019 passed by respondent no. 4 and 28.9.2019 passed by respondent no. 5 shall remain stayed so far as it relates to restraining the payment of salary of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 15.11.2019
Rmk.
BLO बनी अध्यापिका का वेतन रोकने के आदेश पर न्यायालय का स्थगन, अगली सुनवाई 10/1/2020 को
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 55
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16433 of 2019
Petitioner :- Poonam Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Baghel
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 3 and 5 and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 27.3.1997 and is working at Purva Madhyamik Vidyalay Hajaripur, Nagar Kshetra, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to Institution). He next submitted that petitioner was given the work of Booth Level Officer for revision of Electoral Roll/Voter List, which she has properly performed, but by impugned order dated 24.9.2019 passed by respondent no. 4 and consequential order dated 28.9.2019 passed by respondent no. 5 salary of the petitioner has been stopped on the ground that she has not taken adequate interest in performing her job as Booth Level Officer for revision of electoral roll/voter list. He next submitted that aforesaid orders have been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice without issuing any show cause notice or without providing any opportunity of hearing. He next submitted that for such allegation no punishment for restraining the payment of salary can be awarded to the petitioner, therefore, impugned orders are bad in law and liable to be quashed.
Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but could not dispute the fact that no notice or opportunity has been given to the petitioner.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to respondent no. 6 returnable within six weeks.
Steps be taken within a week.
All the respondents are granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this case on 10.1.2020.
Till the next date of listing, impugned orders dated 24.9.2019 passed by respondent no. 4 and 28.9.2019 passed by respondent no. 5 shall remain stayed so far as it relates to restraining the payment of salary of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 15.11.2019
Rmk.
No comments:
Write comments