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


Nand Lal Singh v. D.I.O.S., Gorakhpur & Others - WRIT - A No. 11504 of 1983 [2004] RD-AH 187 (1 April 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).


Court No.23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11504 of 1983

Nand Lal Singh   Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur and another

Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Yadav, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri P.K. Misra, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.2.  

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2.  With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed off finally at this stage in accordance with the provision of High Court Rules.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner was working in the college of respondent no.2 in C.T grade w.e.f. July, 1973 and continued to work regularly till 1st January, 1978 from which date he went on sanctioned leave for one year to complete his B. Ed. and returned back on 1.1.1979.  Since then he is regularly teaching in the college.  Vide letter dated 15.6.1980, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, issued by respondent no.1, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed in C.T. grade and directions were issued to make payment of his salary accordingly.  Since no payment of salary was made to the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking relief that payment of salary w.e.f. 1.1.1979 till date be made.  This writ petition was admitted on 6.10.1983 and time was granted to learned standing counsel to file counter affidavit. The respondent filed his counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner was not made within the sanctioned strength.  Since the matter had been referred to the Deputy Director of Education, VIIth Region, Gorakhpur for necessary inspection and guidance, as the petitioner was not appointed on the sanctioned strength of 10 posts nor his name was amongst the 11 teachers who were actually paid salary. However, the learned standing counsel was required to ascertain as to whether any decision has been taken by the Deputy Director of Education and inform this Court. The learned standing counsel had intimated the Court that entire details had been furnished to the opposite parties through letters, but he had not received any response or information from them. In the said circumstances, this court was left with no option except to direct the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner w.e.f. February 1979 till 16th August 1985.  It was further directed by this Court that the petitioner should be paid salary w.e.f. September 1985 onwards month to month regularly, as and when it became due.

The respondents in compliance of the said order dated 16th September 1985 of this court started making the payment of the salary to the petitioner regularly month-to-month w.e.f. September 1985 till date, and are still making payment regularly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner's services have been regularised in L.T. grade and he is being paid salary accordingly. He further submits that the respondents have not made payment of arrears of salary in compliance of the order dated 16th September, 1985 and in this connection he has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 12.2.2004, a copy of which has been duly received by the standing counsel on 16.3.2004. Time was granted on the said date to the standing counsel to file supplementary counter affidavit.  The learned standing counsel for respondent no.1 submits that in spite of several reminders sent to the respondents there is no response from the side of respondents and no supplementary counter affidavit has been filed.  

In view of the facts and observations made hereinabove, since the respondents have neither complied with the specific direction issued by this court on 16.9.1985 nor they have filed any supplementary counter affidavit, disclosing therein as to what has been the decision of the Deputy Director of Education, VIIth Region, Gorakhpur, in respect of the arrears of salary of the petitioner, I find that the petitioner is entitled to the arrears of his salary and the respondents are directed to make the payment of arrears of salary of the petitioner, which is due w.e.f. 1.1.1979 to 31.8.1985, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition with annexures and with a copy of the counter and rejoinder affidavits before the respondent No.1.

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed off finally.  There is no order as to costs.

Dt. 1.4.2004



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.