Pancham Lal Pandey vs. Neeraj Kumar Mishra: Supreme Court Reverses Review Order on Teacher Salary Dispute

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Pancham Lal Pandey vs. Neeraj Kumar Mishra & Others, which revolved around the payment of salary to teachers employed at a Sanskrit school in Uttar Pradesh. The issue emerged when a dispute regarding the seniority of the teachers arose, particularly concerning the designation and salary payment to Pancham Lal Pandey and Neeraj Kumar Mishra. The matter escalated to the Court following the Uttar Pradesh government’s handling of the employment dispute and the review order passed by the Allahabad High Court.

Background of the Case

The case began with the appointment of teachers at Tripathi Ramroop Sanskrit Vidyalaya in Uttar Pradesh. The school, which was recognized by the state, was granted permanent recognition in 1999. In 2014, the state government decided to place this school under the Grant-in-Aid list, making it eligible for government salaries for its teaching staff, which included Pancham Lal Pandey and other teachers. The government’s circular dated 1st January 2016 allowed teachers at Grant-in-Aid schools to receive salaries based on their seniority, but the issue arose when the state bifurcated the posts of Assistant Teachers subject-wise.

Neeraj Kumar Mishra, a teacher in the same institution, who was junior to Pancham Lal Pandey, was assigned a post, and his salary was approved by the authorities. This decision was challenged by Pancham Lal Pandey, who filed a writ petition against the order of the Director of Secondary Education. The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Pandey, quashing the order and directing the authorities to recognize him for salary payments from the state exchequer. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the High Court’s decision, which was dismissed, and further legal proceedings followed.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Pancham Lal Pandey)

The petitioner, Pancham Lal Pandey, represented by his counsel, argued the following points:

The Uttar Pradesh government had wrongly bifurcated the positions and granted the salary to a junior teacher (Neeraj Kumar Mishra) in violation of the seniority-based system.
The government’s action disregarded the statutory guidelines and previous statements made by the Joint Secretary of the Department of Secondary Education.
The Writ Court had rightly directed the payment of salary to him, as he was the senior-most teacher at the school.

Arguments by the Respondent (Neeraj Kumar Mishra and State Government)

On behalf of Neeraj Kumar Mishra and the State Government, the defense counsel raised the following points:

The bifurcation of posts was not illegal, and the decision was made to ensure efficient management of the teaching staff.
The bifurcation did not alter the salary structure as it followed the guidelines established by the government.
The review petition, which was filed by Neeraj Kumar Mishra, was valid and in line with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the case in detail and delivered its verdict. The Court found that:

The High Court had rightly allowed the writ petition based on the statement made by the Joint Secretary that salary payments would be made based on the seniority of the teachers.
The State Government did not follow the correct procedure in altering the seniority-based system for salary payments.
The review petition filed by Neeraj Kumar Mishra, challenging the dismissal of the Special Appeal, was not maintainable as there was no error apparent on the record.

The Court stated:

“The bifurcation of the posts of Assistant Teachers is simply an internal matter of the institution. It does not put any additional burden on the state. The issue of teaching subjects should not affect the salary entitlement of the teachers.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

The review order passed by the Allahabad High Court on 5th February 2021 was quashed as the Court found no error in the previous dismissal of the Special Appeal.
The appeal filed by Pancham Lal Pandey was allowed, and he was entitled to receive his salary based on his seniority, in accordance with the statements made by the Joint Secretary.
The Court observed that the salary structure should be based on seniority, and the internal reorganization within the institution should not affect this basic principle.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has important implications for the public education system and its regulations:

Upholding Seniority: The Court reinforced the principle that seniority should be a guiding factor in decisions regarding salary and position, ensuring fairness and transparency in the payment structure.
Internal Management vs. Government Guidelines: The judgment clarified that internal management decisions, such as the bifurcation of posts, cannot override government guidelines and statutory provisions.
Legal Precedent: This case sets a precedent for future cases involving seniority-based claims and salary disputes within educational institutions.

This decision highlights the importance of adhering to government policies and guidelines when managing employees in public institutions and ensuring that seniority and fairness are upheld.

Petitioner Name: Pancham Lal Pandey.
Respondent Name: Neeraj Kumar Mishra & Others.
Judgment By: Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 15-02-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: pancham-lal-pandey-vs-neeraj-kumar-mishra-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-15-02-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Contractual Employment
See all petitions in Workplace Harassment
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in Judgment by Pankaj Mithal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category