Court Rules Forged Approval Order Invalidates Salary Entitlement for Teacher in Aided School
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Shitala Prasad, an Assistant Teacher, seeking salary from the State Exchequer. The court found that the foundational approval order for his appointment was forged, thereby nullifying his claim to salary. The judgment, delivered by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, emphasized that a fraudulent appointment cannot confer enforceable rights to salary or service benefits.
The petitioner, Shitala Prasad, had claimed that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a State-aided Junior High School and was entitled to salary based on an approval order dated July 29, 1982, and a subsequent financial sanction order dated March 9, 2000. However, the competent authority, upon examining the original records, found that the alleged approval order was forged and not supported by authentic departmental records.
The High Court upheld this finding, stating that no enforceable right to salary survives once the foundational approval is forged. The judgment also highlighted that the right to salary from the public exchequer flows from a lawful appointment against a duly sanctioned post, which was absent in this case. The court referred to precedents set by the Supreme Court, affirming that appointments obtained through fraudulent means are void from inception and cannot result in salary entitlements.
The petitioner argued that junior teachers were receiving salaries, invoking a plea of discrimination. However, the court dismissed this argument, noting that without a valid foundational approval and lawful appointment, no parity or discrimination claims could be sustained.
The judgment further clarified that even the petitioner's actual work performance does not validate a void appointment or create legal entitlement to salary. The absence of the petitioner's name in managerial records and the fact that he ceased work after 2005 independently disentitle his claim to salary.
Concluding the judgment, the court found no jurisdictional error, procedural impropriety, or violation of natural justice in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that public funds cannot be disbursed on equitable considerations where the legal foundation of an appointment is non-existent or forged.
Bottom Line :
Education Service - Claim for salary from State Exchequer by Assistant Teacher of aided Junior High School - Mere actual working or earlier administrative order does not create enforceable right to salary where foundational approval order is found forged and no sanctioned post is established - Absence of name in managerial/working-strength records and cessation of work after 2005 independently disentitle claim.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978
Shitala Prasad v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985893
