Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARUN KUMAR CHAUBEY versus STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Arun Kumar Chaubey v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - A No. 10224 of 2002 [2004] RD-AH 1500 (24 November 2004)

 

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

                                                                                                        Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  10224 of 2002

Arun Kumar Chaubey        Vs.        State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri Pradeep Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents and Sri Rohit Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent nos. 4and 5 and perused the record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

By an order dated 27.3.1997 the petitioner was selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad for appointment as L.T. grade teacher in the college of Respondent no.4. On 25.4.1997 the petitioner joined the institution. In the joining letter issued by the Committee of Management of the college it was categorically stated that the said joining of the petitioner would be subject to the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools. This writ petition has now been filed with a prayer for a direction that the petitioner be paid his salary for the period 25.4.1997 to 30.6.1997 and be also given the benefit of seniority in the service for the said period.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place before me any provision of law under which he could have given his joining directly to the college in question. He admits that the proper procedure for joining was to approach the college through the District Inspector of Schools. Thus the petitioner has himself violated the provisions of law. It is not disputed that the District Inspector of Schools granted the approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1.7.1997 and the petitioner has been paid his salary with effect from the said date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has validly worked with the college in question with effect from 25.4.1997, he would be entitled to the payment of salary. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sita Ram Yadav vs. District Inspector of Schools 1990 (16) A.L.R.144. In the said case the appointment of a teacher had been made on adhoc basis with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. In such a situation this Court had directed that such teacher would be entitled to the payment of salary till the regularly selected candidate by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board takes over from him. In the said case the appointment had been made, even though on adhoc basis, with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The payment of salary is to be made by the State Government and thus it is mandatorily required under law that approval of the District Inspector of Schools before making such appointment has to be taken. Since in the present case the approval had been accorded by the District Inspector of Schools for the appointment of the petitioner only with effect from 1.7.1997, under law he would be entitled for payment through the State exchequer only with effect from the said date i.e. 1.7.1997. The joining of the petitioner on an earlier date would not entitle him to payment of salary as the same had been done without seeking the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The ratio of the decision in the case of Sita Ram Yadav supra would thus not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

In view of the aforesaid I do not find any cogent ground for issuing direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner his salary for the period 25.4.1997 to 30.6.1997.

This writ petition being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.

Dt/- 24.11.2004

dps


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.