Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suresh Chandra And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 33479 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12958 (26 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Sri Alok Dwivedi appears for the respondent no. 3. Learned standing counsel appears for respondents No. 1 and 2.   Respondent No. 3 is allowed two weeks' time to  file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List on expiry of aforesaid period.

Learned counsel for the  petitioner contends that the District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order has stayed the punishment awarded to the respondent no. 3 dismissing him from service.  Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submitted that the petitioner has dismissed the respondent No. 3 without taking approval of the District Inspector of Schools  and the question as to whether the approval is required has already been referred to larger Bench by referring order dated 27.3.2007 passed in writ petition No.19101 of 1999 (Rishikesh Lal Srivastava  Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others  reported in (2007) 2 UPLBEC 1398.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner  lastly contended that the respondent no. 3 was suspended by the Committee of Management  which suspension was also approved on 5.7.2005 and the suspension was continuing till the decision was taken for dismissing him from service. In accordance with the order of the District Inspector of Schools, directing for staying the dismissal of the respondent No. 3,  the affect of the said order is that the respondent no. 3 shall be continued under suspension. It is thus provided that the respondent no. 3 during the pendency of the writ petition  shall be paid the suspension allowance only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of non payment of salary to respondent no. 3, the salary of entire staff  of the College has been stopped. It is made clear that the respondent no. 3 being entitled only to suspension allowance, the salary of entire staff be not stopped on account of above.

   

D/-26.7.2007

SCS/33479


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.