Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jagmohan Sharma v. Chairman Nagar Panchayat,Raya,Distt Mathura & Others - WRIT - A No. 48479 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 6430 (23 March 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 30

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48479 of 2000

Jagmohan Sharma                          .......       Petitioner


Chairman Nagar Panchayat, Raya,

District Mathura & others               --                                 Respondents.


Hon'ble V.C.Misra, J.

A joint request has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that this writ petition may be heard and disposed off finally at the admission stage itself in terms of the Rules of Court, 1952. I have heard Sri M.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K.Maurya, learned counsel for respondent- Nagar Panchayat, Raya, Mathura and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent at length and perused the record of the case.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner since May, 1999 as well as for payment of current salary month to month regularly.

The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed initially on the post of Clerk/typist in the Nagar Panchayat Raya district Mathura in the year 1989. Petitioner's services were regularised and he was subsequently confirmed by the authority concerned on 1.3.1996 and since then he has been continuously working there with the respondents. It is contended that respondent no. 1 Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Raya, Mathura vide order dated 10.7.1996 restrained the entry of the petitioner in the premises of concerned Nagar Panchayat to which the petitioner challenged before this Court by way of filing a writ petition no. 24219 of 1996 and this Court vide order dated 6.8.1996 stayed the operation of the order dated 10.7.1996 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition). It has been further contended in the writ petition that since the respondent no. 1 flouted the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed a contempt petition no. 2486 of 1997 before this Court in which notice was issued to respondent no. 1. It is further contended that on 4.9.1999 with malafide intention a recovery certificate was issued against the petitioner by the respondent no. 1, which was also challenged by the petitioner before this Court through writ petition no. 86844 of 1999 and this Court vide order dated 11.11.1999 stayed the operation of the order dated 4.9.1999 and 28.10.1999 (Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition). The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he has been continuously working with the respondents and the executive officer and the Chairman issued the certificate in this respect on dated 25.9.2000 and dated 11.10.2000 respectively but his salary is not being paid since May, 1999.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents relevant averments made in the writ petition have not been controverted. In para 4 of the counter affidavit it has been only contended that in respect of the appointment of the petitioner no record is available in the office of Nagar Panchayat, Raya, Mathura as the appointment was allegedly made in the year 1989 before taking over the charge by the deponent i.e. Mr. B.S. Sharma, present Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Raya, Mathura. No denial has been made in respect with the non-payment of the salary of the petitioner.

On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, I am of the view that salary of the petitioner has been wrongly and illegally withheld by the respondent no. 1 and 2 since May, 1999 to which he is entitled to under law. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner with effect from May, 1999 till date alongwith interest in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before them and further continue to pay his salary regularly month to month.

With the above directions the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.  

23.3. 2006

Kdo 48479/2000


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.