Disposed

Smt. Kamlesh Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2018WRIA/26250/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that similarly placed teachers in Meerut had been ordered to receive salary. It directed the District Basic Education Officer to decide the petitioner's salary claim for the unworked session period within six weeks, applying the Angad Kumar judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the 3rd respondent (DBEO, Meerut) to decide petitioner's salary claim within six weeks.

Smt. Kamlesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26250 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Kamlesh Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Neel Kamal Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivam Yadav

¶3

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid salary for the entire session for which he was to be there in service due to session benefit because of the alteration in session from 1st July, 2015 to 4th January, 2016.

¶6

The controversy regarding non continuance of the teachers who retired on 31st March in the relevant year came to be adjudicated by this Court in the case of Angad Yadav and 7 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others (Writ-A No. 33360 of 2017). The Court held that his non continuance is illegal and further set aside the Government order dated 2nd February, 2017 whereby it was provided that payment of salary shall be made only for the period as teacher he has worked for reinstated. The similarly placed teachers, according to the petitioner, in the same institution had earlier approached this Court and this Court remitted the matter to the 3rd respondent, namely, District Basic Education Officer, Meerut to be decided now in favour of those who holding him entitled to salary in the light of the judgment in the case of Angad Kumar ( supra ).

¶7

Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 does not dispute the above factual and legal position.

¶8

In view of the above, the 3rd respondent is directed to decide the matter of the petitioner also regarding payment of salary for the period he has not been paid even though he was entitled for session benefits in the light of the judgment of Angad Kumar ( supra ) and more specially when similarly placed teachers having been granted under the order of the 3rd respondent dated 22nd November, 2018. The decision shall be taken within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶9

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations/ directions.

¶10

Order Date :- 12.12.2018 Atmesh

Smt. Kamlesh Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamlesh Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Kishore Awasthi and Others. Vs State of U.P. and Others

Bhagwan Das Rastogi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home U.P. Lkw. and Ors.

Smt. Seema Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Ramakant Sewa Sansthan Kanya Vidyalaya, Varanasi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Chhaya Vs State of U.P. and Another