NARENDRA PRATAP SAHI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Narendra Pratap Sahi And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 55207 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 11622 (17 July 2006)

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.27

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.55207  of 2004

Narendra Pratap Sahi and others  

Vs.

State of U.P. and others

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage itself.

-The petitioners seek issue of a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay the salary to the petitioners with arrears  and further  the opposite parties may be directed  to release the grant  for payment of salary since the date  of appointment.

In the counter affidavit filed by the DIOS, Deoria  serious disputed question of facts have been raised. It has been stated that there are forged and fictitious documents and further that the  eligibility and the appointment of the  petitioners as teachers of primary section of the institution has been disputed. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that during inspection the petitioners were  not found to be regular teachers and therefore, benefits of government orders dated 6.9.1989 and 21.10.1989 can not be extended to the petitioners.

The petitioners have made representation before the Joint Director of Education a true copy whereof  has been filed as

-2-

annexure-16 to the writ petition. It is submitted that the said representation has not been decided by respondent no.2. Since there are serious disputed question of facts it would be proper that representation may decided by the fact finding authority particularly in view of the fact that DIOS has passed order in favour of the petitioners.

In view of above, it is provided that respondent no.2 may take a decision on the aforesaid representation( annexure-16 to the writ petition) within four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him. The petitioners may file a true copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures before respondent no.2 for better adjudication of the factual controversy.

The writ petition is thus disposed of. No order is passed as to costs. It is made clear that the court has not entered into merit of the controversy.

17.7.06

Gc.

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.