Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM MILAN TRIPATHI versus D.I.O.S. AND OTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Milan Tripathi v. D.I.O.S. And Other - WRIT - A No. 10928 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 7129 (18 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

  Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed for payment of salary with effect from the date of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the C.T. Grade, i.e. 10.10.1981.

It appears that after appointment of the petitioners, respondent no. 3 was given appointment by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur from the pool of teachers. However, it appears from perusal of record that respondent no. 3 has joined another institution, namely, Adarsh Intermediate College, Hata Bazar, Gorakhpur in 1992 and is no more in service of the institution, in question.

So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, it is informed that he, on attaining the age of superannuation, has already retired from service and is being paid pension. Petitioner no. 1 is working as L.T. Grade teacher (slection grade) and is getting his salary in terms of interim order dated  21.7.1986 passed by this Court.

After the appointment of the petitioner, his services are deemed to have been regularized in terms of provisions contained in U.P. Secondary Service (Selection Board) Act, 1982.

Counsel for the respondent no. 3 states that the petitioner was never appointed as his appointment was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur. Papers relating to his appointment were sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur and when no reply was received, his appointment was cancelled vide order dated 22.10.1981.

In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioner states that there is no such order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, no such plea was raised.

It is admitted position that the respondent no. 3 is no more in the service of institution, in question as he has joined another institution in 1992.  The petitionres having worked since 10.10.1981 are entitled to salary for the period they have actually worked. The petitoners have worked in the institution on the strength of interim order dated 21.7.1986 and are still working. Hence, they are entitled to salary and allowances.

As regards salary for the earlier period, the District Inspector of Schools shall decide the question of payment of salary for the said period.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur to decide the question of payment of salary to the petitioners e.f. 10.10.1981 to 20.9.1988.  For the remaining period, as they have worked on the strength of interim order dated 21.7.1986, they are entitled to pay and allowances as admissible to them. No order as to costs.

Dated 18.4.2007

kkb


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.