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


Prem Chand Gupta v. D.I.O.S.,& Others - WRIT - A No. 36011 of 1996 [2007] RD-AH 11173 (4 July 2007)


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).


Judgment Reserved on 10.5.2007

Judgment Delivered on 04.7.2007

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36011 of 1996

Prem Chand Gupta


The District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad & Others


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 26.7.1995 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, besides a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgment/order of the Court dated 21.4.1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 18245 of 1994 and also to give financial approval to his appointment.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the Committee of Management had advertised several posts of Lecturers/Teachers on ad-hoc/temporary basis in different subjects in Northern India Patrika and Amrit Prabhat dated 26.9.1990. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement the petitioner applied for the posts of Lecturer in Sanskrit and for L.T. Grade Teacher. The interview could not take place on the scheduled date as one Ram Sajiwan Misra had filed Writ Petition No. 26826 of 1990 wherein an interim order dated 16.11.1990 was passed restraining the Committee of Management from issuing final order of appointment on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit.

However, the Committee of Management of Mewa Lal Ayodhya Prasad Gupta Smarak Intermediate College, Soraon, Allahabad issued appointment letter dated 25.6.1992 to the petitioner appointing him on the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on ad-hoc basis in pursuance of which the petitioner joined his duties on 1.7.1992 and alleges to be working continuously as Assistant Teacher in the said institution in L.T. Grade.

It appears that since the petitioner was not being paid his salary from the date of his joining, i.e., 1.7.1992, he filed Writ Petition No. 18245 of 1994 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.4.1994 directing the  District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order along with a copy of the writ petition. It is alleged that when respondent no. 1 did not comply with the order dated 21.4.1994 he filed Contempt Petition No. 261 of 1995. It is alleged that annoyed by the contempt application the District Inspector of Schools rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of his salary vide impugned order dated 26.7.1995.

He submits that since the petitioner was appointed in pursuance of an advertisement on ad-hoc basis he is entitled to continue till regularly selected candidate by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission joins the post and thus he is entitled to get salary under the Payment of Salary Act.

It is further submitted by the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration his representation in pursuance of the order of this Court dated  21.4.1994 to evade from contempt proceedings against him and that along with him the other three Assistant Teachers who were also interviewed and appointed, namely, Sri Triveni Shankar Misra, Anuradha Saxena and Sri Uma Gupta are being paid their salary but only he is discriminated by non-payment of his salary which is mala-fide and arbitrary.

Admittedly the petitioner was appointed against existing vacancy after following due procedure of law and as no regularly selected candidate by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission has been appointed  in his place there is no reason to deny salary to the petitioner when similarly situated teachers are admittedly getting salary.

For the reasons stated above the impugned order appears to be mala fide and discriminatory. As a consequence of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools to pay the arrears of salary of the petitioner and his current salary month to month till a selected candidate from the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commissions joins the post on which the petitioner is working. No order as to costs.

Dated: 4.7.2007



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.