Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAILASH RAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kailash Ram v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 19493 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 17946 (16 November 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

Court No. 10

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19493 of 2006

Kailash Ram ........... Petitioner

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others ........... Respondents

***********

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.

Mohan Ashok Prarambhik Pravidhik Vidyalaya, Tanda Kalan, Chandauli is a recognised basic school alleged to be receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government though Secretary, Harijan and Social Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucaknow.

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1.7.1991 against the substantive vacant post. Undisputedly, in the institution at the time of the aforesaid appointment there were 5 sanctioned posts, out of which two were lying vacant and as such against one of them the petitioner was appointed. However, as no approval to the appointment of the petitioner was granted, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 48571 of 1999 along with two other teachers. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.11.1999 directing the District Social Welfare Officer, Chandauli to decide the representation of the petitioner about the payment of salary in accordance with law within two months. It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, the District Social Welfare Officer, Chandauli accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 26.12.2000. However, the said order is not a speaking order and accords approval because such a direction was said to have been issued by the court. Thereafter, for the first time the petitioner was paid salary for three months lastly up to February 2002 out of the State exchequer. The petitioner again approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 74595 of 2005 for the payment of salary. This petition was also disposed of vide order dated 7.12.2005 with the direction to decide the representation of the petitioner with regard to payment of salary within the period of six weeks. In pursuance of the above direction the District Social Welfare Officer has passed an order dated 9.1.2006 which has been impugned in this writ petition. By the said order the District Social Welfare Offiver has stated that the competent authority to grant approval for payment of salary to the petitioner is the State Government. Therefore, he has referred the matter to the State Government for necessary action. No final order in this regard has been passed by the State Government.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the order impugned dated 9.1.2006 is in his favour therefore, he does not want to press the prayer No.1 for the quashing of the same. He only wants to press the second prayer i.e. for a suitable direction for the payment of his salary from the date of approval accorded by the District Social Welfare Officer. Accordingly, the prayer No.1 of the writ petition is treated to have been deleted.

Learned Standing counsel submitted that under the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other conditions) Rules, 1975 since the appointment of the petitioner has not been approved by the Basis Shiksha Adhikari he is not entitled to any salary, though State Government is the ultimate the authority to accord approval for payment of salary.

Be as it may be, as the matter with regard to the payment of salary has been referred by the District Social Welfare Officer to the State Government as per the order dated 9.1.2006, it is expected that the respondent No.1 i.e. Secretary, Harizen & Social Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucknow shall consider the matter and take a final decision in accordance with law with regard to admissibility of the salary to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 while taking the final decision may also construe as to whether the appointment of the petitioner has duly been approved by the competent authority and, in case he finds that the approval has to be granted by the Distirct Shiksha Adhikari he shall not accorded permission for payment of salary unless the matter is referred to the Basic Shiksha Adkhikari for necessary action and approval. The respondent No.1 and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari shall complete the above exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order is presented before him.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Dt. 16.11.2007

S.S.


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.