Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MEWA LAL PATHAK versus D.B.S. AND OTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mewa Lal Pathak v. D.B.S. And Other - WRIT - A No. 15070 of 1987 [2007] RD-AH 13653 (7 August 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

Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15070 of 1987

Mewa Lal Pathak          Vs.       District Basic Shiksha Adhikari & another

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1981.  The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Banda by order dated 16.2.1982. Thereafter the petitioner was made permanent with effect from 7.12.1983. The institution came under the grant-in-aid list of the State Government  on 17.11.1984. By order dated 5.2.1985 the Basic Shiksha Adhikari approved the petitioner's name for payment of salary as an Assistant Teacher from the State funds. The petitioner thereafter sent several representations for payment of his salary. When the same was not paid, the petitioner approached the Director of Education by way of filing a representation which was rejected by order dated 29.4.1987. Aggrieved by the said order this writ petition has been filed. A further prayer has been made to pay the salary to the petitioner form the State funds and to treat him as a permanent teacher.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By an order dated 7.8.1987 an interim mandamus was issued to the Respondent no.1 to pay salary to the petitioner within one month or show cause. Thereafter on 10.11.1987 the following order was passed:-

"Until further orders, we direct the respondent no.1 to pay salary to the petitioner within a month as a trained teacher and continue to pay the same in future."

It has been stated that in terms of the said order the petitioner is being paid his salary regularly month to month. The grievance of the petitioner now is that he is not being given other benefits of service such as deduction of G.P.F.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is a Post Graduate and also holds a certificate of D.P.Ed., the impugned order passed by the respondent treating the petitioner as an untrained teacher is not justified. As such in my view the impugned order dated 29.4.1987 is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 29.4.1987 is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to be treated as a permanent teacher and be paid his salary. The petitioner would also be given all other service benefits in accordance with law. No order as to cost.

dt.  7.8.2007

dps


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.