Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAMMAD ABDULLAH ANSARI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohammad Abdullah Ansari v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 39205 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14520 (27 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 AT ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents no. 1 to 4. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for a counter affidavit. In view of the nature of the order which is being passed, notice to Respondent no.5 is not being issued. In case, if the said respondent is so aggrieved, he may file an application for recall/modification/variation of this order.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of arrears of his salary along with interest as well as current salary. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide order dated 2.1.2006 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziapur, pursuant to which he claims that he joined his duties but is not being paid his salary. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has passed B.Ed. and was given appointment after completion of special B.T.C. In the writ petition itself the petitioner has stated that the respondent-institution informed the petitioner that the genuineness of the B.Ed. Mark-sheet of the petitioner is doubted and hence he is not being paid his salary. It has been contended that no enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the petitioner's mark-sheet has been got conducted by the respondent-authorities and without passing any order in this regard, they are refusing to make payment of the salary to the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that in case if, with regard to his grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioner files a fresh comprehensive representation before the District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur, Respondent no.2, along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said Respondent no.2 by a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of the same. It is further made clear that it shall be open to the District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur to get an enquiry held with regard to the genuineness of the educational certificates of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.

dt.27.8.2007

dps

w.p. 39205 of 2007


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.