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


Vijay Shanker Shukla v. D.I.O.S & Others - WRIT - A No. 10569 of 1992 [2004] RD-AH 248 (18 May 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.10569 of 1992

Vijai Shanker Shukla Vs. District Inspector of Schools,

Allahabad and others.


Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard Sri Lokesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.G. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. On the joint request of counsels for the parties, this petition is disposed off finally at this stage under the provisions of High Court Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the case of the petitioner who is L.T. grade teacher having been appointed by direct recruitment on 1.7.1991 in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 30.6.1991 and since then he is continuously working in the institution run and managed by respondent no.3 without any break. His case is fully covered under the provisions of Section 33-C (1) (a) (i) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Act and he is entitled for his regularization in the service. He has also submitted that he has sought a relief for regularization of his services by way of amendment in the writ petition, which had been allowed on 6.5.2004 by this Court. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. After hearing the counsel for the parties, an interim order dated 27.3.1992 was passed by this Court for payment of salary to the petitioner. In the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, it has been admitted that the District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 6.4.1992 has directed for payment of salary to the petitioner from April, 1992 onwards and the petitioner is continuously working in the institution and getting the salary with increments regularly month to month.

Counsel for the petitioner has stated that till date no regularly selected candidate has joined the post on which the petitioner was appointed and is working. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is now entitled for regularization of his services in accordance with the provisions of Section 33 (C) (1) (a) (i) of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, 1982 which provides that ad hoc teachers appointed between the period 14.5.1991 and not later than 6.8.1983 shall be considered for regularization of their services on the post they are working after they have been found suitable for appointment and selected by the Selection Committee duly constituted under the provisions of Sub Section (2) of Section 33 (C) of the said Act. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is also entitled for the payment of the arrears of salary, which has accrued to him from 1.7.1991 till 31.12.1994 for the period he has worked.

Learned counsels for the parties have requested that the case be disposed off with the direction that the case of the regularization of the petitioner may be considered by the Selection Committee referred to in sub Clause (2) of Section 33 (C) of the Act, in accordance with law.

In view of the facts stated hereinabove, this writ petition is disposed off finally with the direction that the respondent No.1 shall place the relevant documents and papers before the Regional Selection Committee referred to in sub clause (2) of Section 33 (C) of the Act, within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before the respondent No.1 along with a representation by the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner shall continue to work and get his salary till the said Regional Selection Committee takes a final decision in the matter of the petitioner. The respondents shall also make the payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.1991 till 31.3.1992.

No order as to costs.

May 18, 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.