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


Bali Ram Prasad Srivastava v. Hon'Ble High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Thru'Registrar - WRIT - A No. 45255 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 9859 (19 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).


Civil Misc. (Clarification/Modification) Application No. 107210 of 2006


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45255 of 2003

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble G.P.Srivastav, J.

We have heard both sides.

The final judgment dated 9th March 2005, which is sought to be got clarified directed as follows:

"The respondents to pay the salary and other benefits which would have accrued to the petitioner if he had not been passed over for promotion."

These words are ambiguous and at the time of passing of the judgment, it was not considered necessary to give any further clarification for want of arguments on both sides.

However, it has now transpired that for this period for which the petitioner is now to be paid salary or difference in salary and arrears is a period during which other persons occupying same post i.e., Section Officer, were paid a higher amount of salary under a judgment of this Court, which was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court with the finding that the higher salary had wrongly been granted by the High Court and the entitlement was to a lower scale.

The contention of the respondents is that they are obliged to make payment of the salary, which is found to be due in terms of the Supreme Court order.

On the other hand, the petitioner contends that because the excess salary paid to other colleagues of the petitioner has not been directed to be refunded, therefore, the petitioner should also be paid the same higher salary by way of parity.

As a matter of law, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner. No mandamus can issue directing the respondents to make payment of a salary to which the petitioner is not entitled as a matter of right. Therefore, as a matter of right, the petitioner would be entitled to the salary to which he is entitled in terms of the Supreme Court order.

However, if the excess salary paid to the colleagues of the petitioner has been protected by some order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and has been directed not to be refunded, it will be open to the petitioner to make a representation to that effect to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and, if such a representation is made, we have no doubt that Hon'ble the Chief Justice will give it due attention at his earliest convenience.

With these directions, this clarification/modification application is disposed of.

Dated : May 19, 2006



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.