In a writ petition, the High Court held the petitioner entitled to salary arrears from his date of appointment irrespective of financial sanction, relying on Regulation 101 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and relevant precedents.
Arrears of salary paid from 15.7.1993 to March 2003 upon appointment date
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35462 of 1995
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Respondent :- D.I.O.S. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Chandra Yadav,D.S.M. Tripathi,U.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,I.J.Singh Yadav,I.S. Singh Yadav,I.S.Yadav,Indrajeet Singh Jadaun,J.J.S. Yadav,J.S. Yadav
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur / respondent no.1 to pay salary to the petitioner from the date of his appointment and not from the date when financial sanction was granted for payment of his salary.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by the order dated 1.6.1993 after prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and since no salary was being paid to him he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. By the interim order dated 18.4.2000 the respondents were directed to make the payment of salary of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Leela Singh and others Vs. D.I.O.S., Ghaziabad and others reported in 2018(3) ADJ 419 and a judgment in case of Jagdish Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2006(4) ADJ 162 (All)(DB) in support of his contention that as per Regulation 101 of the Chapter III of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 his appointment was with prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools and therefore, as per law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, he is entitled to get the salary from the date of his appointment and not from the date of grant of financial sanction.
Learned Standing Counsel has argued on behalf of the counter affidavit that the approval granted to the petitioner was illegal. However, the order dated 1.6.1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur granting approval to his appointment has not been disputed, it has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petitioner by the petitioner and therefore, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted to be correct.
Petitioner is held entitled to get the arrears of salary from
the date of his appointment dated 15.7.1993 till March 2003 when the financial sanction was granted to his appointment by the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court.
Writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 20.3.2018 SS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary arrears from the date of appointment or only from the date of financial sanction?
Whether the interim order directing salary payment from the date of appointment should be implemented retrospectively?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Leela Singh and others Vs. D.I.O.S., Ghaziabad and othersRelied on¶8
2018(3) ADJ 419
Jagdish Singh Vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶8
2006(4) ADJ 162 (All)(DB)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shiv Kumar
District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
