High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
J.N.Singh v. Dios - WRIT - A No. - 1948 of 1992  RD-AH 16955 (26 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1948 of 1992
Jitendra Nath Singh
District Inspector of schools, Allahabad
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Petitioner claims to have been appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in the subject of Biology against the vacancy which occurred on account of promotion of Sri Om Prakash Tiwari as Lecturer. Petitioner has contended that his appointment has been made strictly as per provisions as contained in U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and thereafter, entire papers were transmitted to the D.I.O.S. for the purposes of ensuring payment of salary, as his appointment had been made against the sanctioned post in accordance with law. Petitioner has contended that as there was in action on the part of D.I.O.S. in not ensuring payment of salary and Manager had already submitted salary bill in this background, present petition had been filed.
This court on the presentation of writ petition, passed following order on 20.01.1992, which is extracted below:-
"Notices on behalf of respondent no.1 has been served upon the Standing Counsel. The petitioner is directed to serve all respondent alongwith a copy of this order . All respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks of the service of notice with duplicate.
In the meanwhile and within a week of the service of a copy of this order, respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall prepare a bill for payment of salary to the petitioner and submits the same to the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 shall dispose of the bill within ten days of the receipt thereof and in the event of refusal by written objections. All respondents shall show cause in their counter affidavit.
List in the 4th weeks of July, 1992"
Petitioner has further contended that order dated 20.01.1992 categorically mentioned that respondents was obliged to dispose of salary bill within ten days and in case there was refusal, then objections were to be communicated. Petitioner submits that said salary bill was passed without raising any objection and that petitioner has been performing and discharging his duty and is being paid his renumeration .
Since enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, on various occasion, various provisions have been introduced for extending the benefit of regularization to validly appointed ad hoc assistant teacher. Petitioner claims that he is also validly appointed ad hoc teacher and in consonance with the provision under section 33-C of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, his claim for extending the benefit of regularization is also liable to be considered. Petitioner has contended that no one has been recommended by the Selection Board for appointment in place of petitioner.
As petitioner is claiming for regularization in consonance with the provisions as contained under Section 33-C of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, as such D.I.O.S. Ballia is directed to transmit entire paper of the petitioner to Committee constituted for considering the claim of petitioner for regularization within one month. On the said paper being transmitted, Committee constituted shall go first into the question in respect of validity of the appointment of petitioner and thereafter take appropriate decision in accordance with law by means of reasoned speaking order, preferably within period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.