Allowed

Minakshi v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2018SPLA/674/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal filed against an order stopping salary payment during verification. The bench held that no authority exists to detain salary pending inquiry or verification. The appeal was allowed, impugned judgment set aside, and salary payment order restored.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Single Bench judgment set aside; order dated 30.12.2017 directing non-payment of salary set aside to extent applicable.

Minakshi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 674 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Minakshi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Narendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Krishna Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 11th of July, 2018 passed by learned Single Bench, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad to conclude the verification within three weeks and to pass an order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellantpetitioner.

¶6

In brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner entered in service of respondent no. 5 under an order dated 9th of October, 2015 passed by respondent no. 4. Under an order dated 30th of December, 2017 the respondent no. 4 stopped payment of salary to the appellant-petitioner till verification of testimonials submitted by her in relation to teaching experience. The case of the appellantpetitioner is that the respondent no. 4 is having no authority to stop the payment of salary while making verification of documents or otherwise. Learned Single Bench instead of examining merits of the case disposed of the writ petition by directing the District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad to conclude the verification within a period of three weeks by providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant-petitioner.

¶7

On going through the judgment impugned, the averments in the petition for writ and the relevant rules, we find that after giving regular appointment to a person there is no authority available to the District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad to detain salary of an employee during pendency of some inquiry or verification. As a matter of fact the direction given to detain the payment of salary is absolutely without jurisdiction and, as such, deserves to be quashed.

¶8

In view of it, the appeal is allowed . The judgment passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The order dated 30th of December, 2017 is set aside to the extent that directs for not making payment of salary to the appellant-petitioner.

¶9

Order Date :- 31.7.2018 Prajapati

¶10

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J] [Govind Mathur, J]

Minakshi v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minakshi v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Committee of Management Sri Mahauru Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Ravindra Nath Kaushal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jai Chandra Singh Vs Regional Joint Director of Education and 3 Others

Sudheer Messey Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nisha Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Satendra Kumar Chaurasia Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.