A teacher’s benefits claim turns on appointment validity, not prior State salary payment.

The petitioner sought arrears of salary and consequential retiral benefits arising from her husband’s service in the primary section of an institution.

The Management stated that he had been appointed in 1964 in accordance with law, served continuously until superannuation on 30 June 2000, and died on 16 March 2004.

The District Inspector of Schools rejected the claim, relying on the absence of salary payments from the State Exchequer and a report questioning the appointment.

The petitioner challenged that decision, contending that the authorities had failed to consider documents supporting her husband’s appointment.

An earlier Division Bench decision had directed the authorities to examine the appointments and pass a reasoned order after hearing the affected employees.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for salary arrears and retiral benefits could be rejected because her husband had not received salary from the State Exchequer during his service.

Whether the authority had properly considered the evidence concerning the validity of her husband’s appointment before rejecting the claim.

The Court relied on the principle that teachers in a recognised primary section attached to a senior basic school may be entitled to salary under Section 10 of the 1978 Act, even without a separate government grant-in-aid order for that section.

It also applied the Division Bench’s direction in State of U.P. v. Bhrigunath Ram, which required the authority to examine whether the appointments were lawful and, if rejecting a claim, to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order.

The validity of the appointment—not the fact that salary had previously been paid from the State Exchequer—was to be the focus of the scrutiny.

The authority had not adequately considered the documents produced by the petitioner and the Management concerning her husband’s appointment.

Its reliance on an inspection report listing employees working in December 2004 was insufficient: her husband had retired in 2000 and died in 2004, so his absence from that later list did not establish that his appointment was invalid.

The Management’s affidavit also supported the assertion that he had been lawfully appointed and completed his service.

Given the applicable salary principle and the earlier direction requiring a reasoned determination of appointment validity, the Court held that the claim could not be rejected merely because no salary had previously been paid from the State Exchequer.

It remitted the matter to the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, to consider the documents submitted by the petitioner and the Management, follow the principles of natural justice, and pass a reasoned order—preferably within two months after the petitioner filed a detailed representation with supporting documents.

The authority was directed not to reject the claim merely because the husband had not received salary from the State Exchequer before retirement or death; scrutiny was to be confined to the validity of his appointment.