Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VACHASPATI SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vachaspati Sharma v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 5718 of 1985 [2006] RD-AH 9568 (15 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

    Court No.27

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5718 of 1985

Vachaspati Sharma  ................................................       Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. & others  ...........................................      Respondents

............................

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and th learned standing counsel.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's functioning as Principal of Dayanand Intermediate College, Mainpuri and pay arrears of salary from the month of October, 1982 to March, 1983 and from December, 1983 till date. The writ petition was filed on 3.5.1985. The petitioner has been permitted to amend the writ petition.  A prayer has been added seeking a direction  to the respondents to award balance of salary right from 1.11.1982 to 30.6.1988 and to give selection grade along with  interest and the retirement benefits be calculated accordingly.

The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that he is working as Principal of the Institution.  In the institution an authorised controller was appointed and there were elections for committee of management. The dispute pertaining  to the committee of management was also taken to the civil court.  It has been averred in the writ petition that on the question of joining of one teacher  the Manager became annoyed with the petitioner and the salary of the petitioner was stopped from the month of October, 1982 till March, 1983.  On the aforesaid circumstances the writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs quoted above.  The petitioner retired on 30th June, 1988.  In the amended pleadings it has been stated that the petitioner was paid his salary, however, the petitioner was not awarded yearly increments. Petitioner has also claimed for grant of selection grade.

There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner has been functioning as Principal of the Institution. The petitioner has already retired on 30.6.1988 hence the main relief for which  l;the writ petition was filed has become infructuous.  The only relief which survive for consideration is the claim of the petitioner for directing the respondents to pay  his annual increments; although  time was allowed to file counter affidavit  to the amended pleadings but no counter affidavit  has yet been filed.  There are no material on the record to determine as to whether  annual increments were  denied to the petitioner or there was any reason for denying the increment.  No useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending, the ends of justice will be served in directing the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the District Inspector of Schools  giving details of his claim of annual increments and grant of selection grade  in accordance with relevant rules and the Government orders applicable.  In the event the petitioner submits a detailed representation to the District Inspector of Schools within two months along with the copy of this order the same shall be considered and appropriate decision be taken by the District Inspector of Schools expeditiously.  It goes without saying that in the event the petitioner is allowed benefit of increments or any other financial benefit  the retirement benefits of the petitioner  has to be accordingly  calculated for which necessary action be taken by the District Inspector of Schools communicating the same to the competent authority.

With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of.  

D/-16.5.2006

    SCS


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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