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


Ram Moorat Sharma v. B.D., Junior High School & Others - WRIT - A No. 28864 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 2487 (7 September 2005)


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.28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28864  of 2000

Ram Moorti Sharma


Committee of Management and others

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the   respondents to pay the arrears of revised pay from 1.1.1996 to 31.1.1999, leave encashment due on retirement and other allowances. The petitioner submits that he joined the respondent no.1's institution as clerk on 1.7.1957   and was retired on 31.1.1999. The respondent institute is recognized and aided institute and is managed by Committee of Management. It is stated that by virtue of government order dated 29.11.1994 it was directed that all teaching  and non-teaching staff of Junior High School who opt to retire at the age of 58 years will be entitled to gratuity. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that  he was retired at the age of 60 years. However, he submits that  he was not paid arrears of pay revision for the period claimed by him and to such effect he made a representation to respondent no.3 but he has not taken any action in the said matter. However,  upon a notice


being served  by the petitioner on respondent no.1, Committee of Management  has informed the petitioner that since  the age of superannuation of clerk is only 58 years and since the petitioner retired at the age of 60 years therefore, he was required to refund the salary drawn by him for the two years. It appears that the controversy between the petitioner and  respondent no.1 relates  to as to whether  the petitioner is entitled to retiral benefits as applicable by government order and as to whether  he is entitled to revised pay scale, increment and other allowances which he has claimed. In the writ petition, the factual controversies have been raised. The letter of respondent no.1 dated 22.2.2000 whereby  the committee of management has declined the claim of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent no.3.

In view of the aforesaid facts  it is directed that  in case the petitioner makes suitable application before respondent no.3 detailing his claim, respondent no.3 after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and  committee of management  will take a decision thereon within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order along with such application is


produced  before him. The respondent no.3 will record his reason while passing order on such application.

Writ petition stands disposed of as above. No order is passed as to costs.




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.