Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jai Prakash v. D.I.O.S.Jaunpur & Others - WRIT - A No. 14271 of 1998 [2007] RD-AH 6520 (10 April 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).


Court no. 26

              Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14271  of 1998

Jai Prakash               versus      The DIOS, Jaunpur and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.S. Tomar, Standing counsel assisted by Sri Ram Dawat, brief holder for the respondents.

It appears from the record that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Janta Inter College, Jafarabad, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the ''College').  The services of the petitioner were approved vide order dated 1.12.1990 by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and he was paid salary till September, 1995.

The counsel for the petitioner has urged that the salary of the petitioner has been stopped thereafter without rhyme and reasons arbitrarily and illegally.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of non-payment of salary the petitioner moved the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur by means of two representations dated 30.10.95 and 4.11.1995 which remained un-actioned and undecided by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. Then petitioner moved this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32289 of 1995, Jai Prakash Vs. D.I.O.S. Jaunpur and others.  

The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 16.11.1995 directing the D.I.O.S, Jaunpur, respondent no.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner contained in Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition, in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Committee of Management, respondent no.2 of that writ petition by passing reasoned order and communicating the decision to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of such decision.

In pursuance of the order dated 16.11.1995 the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur decided the representation of the petitioner directing respondent no.2, the Committee of Management to pay salary to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 24.7.92 which has not yet been paid by respondent no.2, the Committee of Management.

The petitioner has now come up in this writ petition for a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, respondent no.1 to pay salary for the period 1.7.1991 to 31.11.92 and 1.10.95 to 20.5.96 to him.

It is surprising to note that the District Inspector of Schools has failed to take any action against respondent no.2, the Committee of Management for non-payment of salary to the petitioner in-spite of his own direction.  He has failed in his duties in this regard.  When an officer passes an order, it is his solemn and moral responsibility to see that his lawful order is complied with. If the salary was not being paid by respondent no.2, the Committee of Management, the D.I.O.S. was not powerless he could have passed an order for payment of salary by single operation or could have got his orders complied with by the Management by taking recourse to other coercive process under the Intermediate Education Act, 1975. Merely deciding representation and issuance of directions for payment of salary are not compliance of the directions of this Court in letter and spirit until and unless the impediment for payment of salary is brought to its logical end.

Let an affidavit be filed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur informing the Court what action has been taken by him for compliance of the order dated 14.8.96 passed by the then D.I.O.S. and what action he (the present D.I.O.S.) has taken against respondent no.2, the Committee of Management within one month.

It is observed that in action of the officer resulting in pendency of such petty matters before this Court and the litigants are compelled to approach this Court time and again merely because of the fact that there is lack of will on the part of such officer to get his orders implemented.

List after one month. In case an affidavit is not filed as directed by this Court within one month, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur shall be personally present in Court on 14.5.2007.

Sri J.S. Tomar, Standing counsel for the respondents will inform the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur about this order within 3 days by fax as well as by telephone.

Dated 10.4.2007



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.