Dharmvir Vs. State of U.P. and others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 8305-06 of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10919 – 10920 of 1989)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10919 – 10920 of 1989)
Petitioner: Dharmvir
Respondent: State of U.P. and others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 8305-06 of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10919 – 10920 of 1989)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10919 – 10920 of 1989)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 04, 1995
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Salary
Salary – In view of the directions of the Court salary was paid to the appellant – Management had also paid the salary – Held that if the appellant had already received the salary, he would not be entitled to the salary now for the same period – Appellant’s entitlement to continue in service to be decided in accordance with rules and he would considered for the same along with other candidates.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The only controversy in this case is whether the appellant is entitled for salary for the period during which he had worked. Though the controversy has been raised as to whether he was validly appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the appropriate rules, it is not necessary for us to go into that controversy as it is not the question in issue. The District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar in his report dated February 1, 1989 had stated that he had inspected the Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Raunija on January 25, 1989 and found that the appellant had been working since September 3, 1985 as teacher since the reserved teacher, viz., Kanchi Mal Gupta, had not joined and one Vijay Kumar had also left the post. Consequently, since the Maths Teacher post was vacant and the appellant had been working ever since September 3, 1985, the appellant is entitled to the payment of salary.
3. Ms. Rachna Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Management, has stated that the Manager and the appellant had colluded and got double payment. Salary had been duly paid pursuant to the direction of this Court. But he was paid by the Management itself for the period from September 1985 to June 1988. If that is so, it would be open to the Management, in consultation with the District Inspector of Schools, to have it verified whether the salary in fact was paid to the appellant for the period in question. If he has already received it, he is not entitled to the salary now for the same period. We also direct that appellant’s entitlement to continue in service according to the rules be decided by the appropriate authority and the post would be filled in accordance with rules. In case the appellant becomes over-aged for consideration, necessary relaxation will be given and he will be considered along with the candidates to be interviewed by the appropriate Committee in accordance with the rules.
4. The appeal are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The only controversy in this case is whether the appellant is entitled for salary for the period during which he had worked. Though the controversy has been raised as to whether he was validly appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the appropriate rules, it is not necessary for us to go into that controversy as it is not the question in issue. The District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar in his report dated February 1, 1989 had stated that he had inspected the Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Raunija on January 25, 1989 and found that the appellant had been working since September 3, 1985 as teacher since the reserved teacher, viz., Kanchi Mal Gupta, had not joined and one Vijay Kumar had also left the post. Consequently, since the Maths Teacher post was vacant and the appellant had been working ever since September 3, 1985, the appellant is entitled to the payment of salary.
3. Ms. Rachna Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Management, has stated that the Manager and the appellant had colluded and got double payment. Salary had been duly paid pursuant to the direction of this Court. But he was paid by the Management itself for the period from September 1985 to June 1988. If that is so, it would be open to the Management, in consultation with the District Inspector of Schools, to have it verified whether the salary in fact was paid to the appellant for the period in question. If he has already received it, he is not entitled to the salary now for the same period. We also direct that appellant’s entitlement to continue in service according to the rules be decided by the appropriate authority and the post would be filled in accordance with rules. In case the appellant becomes over-aged for consideration, necessary relaxation will be given and he will be considered along with the candidates to be interviewed by the appropriate Committee in accordance with the rules.
4. The appeal are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
