Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUDAMA SINGH YADAV & ANOTHER versus D.I.O.S. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sudama Singh Yadav & Another v. D.I.O.S. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1602 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18356 (27 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

CJ's Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Special Appeal No.1602 of 2007

Sudama Singh Yadav

Vs.

District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and others

Hon'ble H.L.Gokhale, CJ

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

Date:27.11.2007

1. Heard Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Deo Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. G.C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appears for Respondents 1 to 3.

2. The appellant claims to be working in an Intermediate College from 1991. The College came under the grant-in-aid sometime in the year 1996. The Management sought clearance from the concerned authority of the Education Department with respect to certain number of posts. It sought sanction for eight posts of teachers, but the Government cleared only six posts. The appellant made a representation for payment of salary, which came to be rejected on 21.8.1999 by respondent no.2, i.e., the Joint Director of Education. This decision was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition.

3. It is material to note that as far as the Committee of Management is concerned, it did not challenge the decision of the Government and it did not support the appellant by filing any counter affidavit or otherwise. Thus, the College Management accepted the decision of the Government sanctioning six posts while receiving the grant-in-aid. Salary over and above the sanctioned strength cannot be insisted from the Government. As far as the appellant is concerned, if he is continuing in the College, it is a matter between him and the Management of the concerned College, when it comes to salary for the work rendered in that Institution.

4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. In our view, there is no error on his part. The appeal is dismissed.

Dt/-27.11.2007

RKK/- (Chief Justice)

(Pankaj Mithal, J.)


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.