Allahabad High Court
Shesh Nath Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 6 January, 2010
Author: Shishir Kumar
Bench: Shishir Kumar
Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 66488 of 2006 Petitioner :- Shesh Nath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Mohan Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. This writ petition has been filed for mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner for July 1997 to December 1998; July 2000 to July 2001; March 2003 to June 2003 and August, 2003 to June 2005. Petitioner is working as a Plant In-charge, Bagapar, Maharajganj under the control of the respondent No. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner is working on the said post but the respondent No. 4 without any reason has not paid the salary to the petitioner for the period mentioned above. Petitioner submitted various applications and reminders to this effect and a representation to this effect was also submitted to the Director of Agriculture, U.P., Lucknow who passed an order on 27.1.2006 directing the respondent No. 4 to pay the salary for the period mentioned above. In spite of the aforesaid fact, the salary to the petitioner was not paid, hence he filed the writ petition before this Court for the aforesaid reliefs.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed and this Court had directed to produce the record regarding attendance of the petitioner whether the petitioner is working on the said post or not. The attendance register was produced before this Court and have been perused. A denial by the petitioner has been made that this is the register of the Head Office situated at Gorakhpur. Petitioner is working as a Plant In-charge at a distance of about 40 kms. from the office of respondent No. 4. Therefore, the register submitted before this Court has got no sanctity and cannot be relied upon. Further submission has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has annexed the photocopies of the attendance register where the petitioner is working and that attendance register has not been submitted by the respondent before this Court. Further it has been brought to the notice of the Court regarding a letter of respondent No. 4 dated 23.12.2006 annexed to the rejoinder affidavit which clearly indicates regarding sanction of the salary for the period claimed by the petitioner by the respondent No. 4 to be paid to the petitioner. In spite of the aforesaid fact petitioner submits that the amount has not yet been paid.
Learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to show from the record that there is no order of the competent authority regarding payment of salary which has not been paid to the petitioner for the period mentioned above. In view of the aforesaid fact, this writ petition is being disposed of finally directing the respondent No. 4 to comply the order passed by the respondent No. 1 within a period of two months, in case the petitioner on the basis of relevant records is entitled to get the salary and there is no other legal impediment for payment of the salary claimed by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 6.1.2010 Pk