Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc. v. State of U.P. (2024 INSC 7)

Since the appointment order and the approval order are still in force, we declare that the appellants have always been and are deemed to be in service. Apart from 50% backwages, as ordered above, we direct that all consequential benefits, including seniority, notional promotion, if any, and fitment of salary and other service benefits due, be granted to the appellants. We direct the State to comply with these directions within four weeks from today. We also direct that the appellants be allowed to commence work within the said period of four weeks.

Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 20-21 of 2024)

03 January 2024

[J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]

This case revolves around the abrupt stoppage of salaries of the appellants, who were recruited as Assistant Teachers, based on allegations of manipulation by the School management. The key aspects and the court’s findings are summarized as follows:

Facts:

1. Recruitment and Creation of Posts:
   • By order dated 26.12.1997, the Joint Director of Education sanctioned two posts of Assistant Teacher.
   • The School’s management allegedly manipulated the order to reflect the sanction of three posts instead of two.
   • The appellants were recruited as Assistant Teachers from the open market.
2. Stoppage of Salary:
   • In October 2005, the salaries of the appellants were abruptly stopped based on the allegation of manipulation.
   • An inquiry revealed that the Manager of the School fraudulently altered the number of sanctioned posts.
3. Legal Issues:
   • Whether the appellants were complicit in the alleged manipulation.
   • Whether the State’s decision to stop salaries was justified.

Court’s Findings:

1. No Evidence of Collusion:
   • The court noted that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the appellants colluded with the School management in the alleged manipulation.
   • The appellants were bona fide applicants who had no role in the alteration of the sanctioned posts.
2. Responsibility of the School Management:
   • The inquiry report confirmed that the manipulation was carried out by the Manager of the School.
   • An FIR was filed against the Manager for the fraudulent act.
3. Violation of Justice:
   • The court emphasized that it would be unjust to penalize the appellants, who were not at fault, by withholding their salaries.
   • The appellants continued to serve as Assistant Teachers and were entitled to their salaries.
4. State’s Obligations:
   • The State had not terminated the appellants’ services, making the stoppage of salaries arbitrary and unlawful.

Court’s Directions:

1. Salary Payment:
   • The State was directed to pay the appellants their full salaries for the period from 25.06.1999 to January 2002.
   • For the period from October 2005 to the date of the judgment, the appellants were awarded 50% of the back wages.
2. Reinstatement of Work:
   • The State was directed to allow the appellants to resume their duties.

Propriety of the Decision:

The judgment underscores the principle that innocent employees cannot be held liable for the malfeasance of others. It also reinforces the duty of the State to act fairly and in accordance with the law, ensuring that individuals are not deprived of their legitimate rights without proper justification.

Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. and Another vs. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare, (2005) 10 SCC 465 is a case which, on facts, has a striking resemblance to the case at hand. The respondent therein had been recommended by the department and was selected as line-helper in the appellant-Board. On the ground that the recommendation was allegedly made fraudulently, the respondent was dismissed from service. The complaint preferred by the respondent had been dismissed by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court reversing the findings of the Labour Court, quashed the termination of the respondent therein and directed reinstatement. Writ Petition filed by the appellant therein was dismissed by the High Court. This Court, while observing that in the absence of any overt act being attributed to the respondent, held that it could not be inferred that the respondent had a role in sending fraudulent list, solely on the basis of the presumption that he got the job.

Case Laws

Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B and Another vs. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare, (2005)10 SCC 465; Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., [2013] 10 SCR 1114:(2013) 14 SCC 494; Anmol Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2021 INSC 101: (2021) 5 SCC 424; Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Another vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others, [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 115:(1993) 3 SCC 591; Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, [2013] 4 SCR 753:(2013) 4 SCC 690; K. Ameer Khan and Anr. Vs. A. Gangadharan and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 84; Sivanandan C.T. and Others vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 994 – relied on.

Sachin Kumar and Ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Ors. [2021] 2 SCR 1073:2021 INSC 147: 2021 (4) SCC 631 – distinguished.

Vivek Kaisth and Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 2023 INSC 1007:2023 SCC OnLine SC 1485 – referred to.