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 2]

Allahabad High Court

Jay Prakash Narayan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 November, 2019

Author: Neeraj Tiwari

Bench: Neeraj Tiwari





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17225 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Narayan Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P.N. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
 

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as Headmaster on 10.09.1983 in Chandrashekhar Vidayalaya, Bhimpura No.2, District Ballia. His superannuation was due on 30.6.2015, but he was provided session benefit and ultimately retired from service on 31.03.2016. He was paid salary for two months only i.e. February & March, 2016, but salary from July, 2015 to January, 2016 has not been paid. For redressal of his grievance, he has moved representation through registered post on 4.9.2019 before the respondent no.4, but till date same has not been decided. Lastly, he submitted that a suitable direction may be issued to respondent no.4 to decide the representation of the petitioner.

Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 submitted that authority to sanction the payment of salary is respondent no.3 and further submitted that he may be directed to file fresh representation before the respondent no.3 and in case, any such fresh representation is filed, he shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before the respondent no.3 within two weeks from today. In case any such representation alongwith certified copy of this order is filed by the petitioner, respondent no.3 is directed to consider and decide the same maximum within two months from the date of receiving of representation.

It is made clear that Court has not adjudicated the case on merits and it is upon the respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner after considering the Rules and Government Orders occupying the field.

Order Date :- 1.11.2019 Junaid