Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Ram Das Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 28 September, 2016

Author: Manoj Misra

Bench: Manoj Misra





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 46799 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Das Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi,Vivek Singh Shrinet
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
 

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.

Considering the nature of the order that is being passed, this Court does not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent no.4 as it would serve no useful purpose.

The case of the petitioner is that consequent to the retirement of the Principal of C.A.V. Inter College, Allahabad, the petitioner was appointed as Officiating Principal and his signature was duly attested as such. It has been submitted that under Section 18(3) of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982, the Officiating Principal is entitled to get his salary as Principal. It has been submitted that, therefore, the respondents be directed to determine and disburse the salary of a Principal to the petitioner with effect from the date of his appointment i.e. 29.06.2015.

Considering the nature of the prayer of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the third respondent (District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad) in respect of his claim. If any such representation is filed along with certified copy of this order, the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad shall take an appropriate decision on the same, in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to the fourth respondent (management of the institution concerned). In case the claim of the petitioner is found to be in order, necessary direction for determination as well as payment of differential salary shall be made.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

Order Date :- 28.9.2016 AKShukla/-