ग्रेच्युटी भुगतान पर अलग-अलग तरीका क्यों अपना रहे बीएसए? अवमानना याचिका पर हाईकोर्ट ने सवाल उठाते हुए बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के सचिव से मांगा जवाब

 ग्रेच्युटी भुगतान पर अलग-अलग तरीका क्यों अपना रहे बीएसए? अवमानना याचिका पर हाईकोर्ट ने सवाल उठाते हुए बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के सचिव से मांगा जवाब

प्रयागराज: इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने अवमानना में बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के सचिव को नोटिस जारी कर उनसे व्यक्तिगत हलफनामा मांगा है। पूछा है कि दिवंगत अध्यापकों के ग्रेच्युटी भुगतान के मामलों में विभिन्न जिलों के बीएसए अलग अलग तरीका क्यों अपना रहे हैं। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति रोहित रंजन अग्रवाल ने विनोद कुमार शर्मा व अन्य की अवमानना याचिका पर अधिवक्ता कमल कुमार केसरवानी को सुनकर दिया। 

मृतक अध्यापक के विकल्प न भरने पर ग्रेच्युटी भुगतान नहीं करने पर हाई कोर्ट ने ऊषा रानी के मामले में निर्णय दिया कि विकल्प न होने पर ग्रेच्युटी नहीं रोकी जा सकती। इसी आधार पर याचियों को भी हाई कोर्ट से राहत मिली, लेकिन उन्हें ग्रेच्युटी का भुगतान नहीं किया गया। इस पर अवमानना याचिका की गई। अधिवक्ता कमल केसरवानी ने कहा कि जनपदों में भी ग्रेच्युटी भुगतान किया जा रहा है और कुछ जिलों सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में भुगतान नहीं किया रहा है।

✍️ कोर्ट आर्डर

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 10

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 74 of 2022

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Sharma

Opposite Party :- Jay Karan Yadav, District Basic Education And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

Sri Yatindra, learned counsel who represents Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad is present in the Court. Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel who appears for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 is also present.

All the counsels for applicants in connected matters are directed to supply a copy of the contempt application to Sri Yatindra who appears for the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, within 24 hours.

This contempt application has been filed for punishing the opposite parties no.1 and 2 for not complying the order of the writ Court for the payment of gratuity. The stand taken by opposite party is that against the leading judgment referred in case of Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in Writ-A No.17399 of 2019, the State has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Sri Kamal Kishore Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the applicant along with the other counsel, who are appearing in the connected matters, submitted that the opposite parties are discriminating in not releasing the gratuity amount, while in some of the districts specially Gorakhpur, Pilibhit and Badaun, the payments have been released by the District Basic Education Officers, but in the present case as the matter is of District Bijnor, the District Basic Education Officer is not releasing the amount.

This Court directs Sri Yatindra who appears for the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad under whom all the District Basic Education Officers work is directed to file personal affidavit of the Secretary explaining the conduct of different District Basic Education Officers in not complying the orders of the writ Court, within two weeks.

The Secretary shall also ensure that in case, the amount of gratuity is released in some of the districts, the order of the writ Court should be complied with by rest of the District Basic Education Officers.

List this matter on 18th April, 2022.

When the case is listed next, name of Sri Yatindra shall be shown as counsel for opposite party, who shall come up with instructions in all the connected cases.

Order Date :- 28.3.2022//SK Goswami