High CourtsSingle Bench

Narendra Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 1 September 2010 · Citation: (2010) 09 AHC CK 0417

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shabihul Hasnain, J
RESULT
Allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 351 words

Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Ravi Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3.

2.

Issue notice to opposite party No. 4 returnable at an early date.

3.

Steps be taken within a week.

4.

All the opposite parties are granted four weeks time for filing counter-affidavit. Rejoinder- affidavit may be filed by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.

5.

The petitioner has been appointed by the committee of management after adopting due procedure as contemplated under the law for making such appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner says that due to lack of approval, the petitioner is not getting salary for the said post, although he is continuously discharging his duty on the basis of a valid appointment letter. The publication was made in two news papers and a selection committee was also held. The petitioner possesses requisite qualification. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that although he is working continuously but the salary is not being paid because the case of Rakesh Chandra Misra v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2004(22) L.C.D. 1604 Allahabad, was referred to the larger Bench.

6.

Now the controversy has been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Daya Shanker Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools and Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20843 of 2002 (Allahabad) decided on 31.3. 2010.

7.

Learned standing counsel has agreed that on the basis of aforesaid judgment of the larger Bench, the payment of salary for such vacancy has to be made by the opposite parties till regularly selected candidate joins the post.

8.

Accordingly, further operation of the impugned order dated 16.09.2009 passed by opposite party No. 3 as contained in annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed. The respondents are directed to make payment of regular salary, forthwith, to the petitioner. However, the appointment of the petitioner shall come to an end as soon as regularly selected candidate joins the post.