Remanded

Bhupendra Kumar Pandey v. D.B.E.O. and Others

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2018WRIA/40996/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, seeking direction for salary payment after his appointment by DBEO. The High Court directed the DBEO to conduct a discreet enquiry in accordance with law, giving parties an opportunity to be heard within two months, and directed continuation of salary payments pending the fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent DBEO to hold a discreet enquiry in accordance with law after giving opportunity to parties within two months and continue salary payment pending such order.

Bhupendra Kumar Pandey Vs D.B.E.O. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40996 of 1997

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhupendra Kumar Pandey Respondent :- D.B.E.O. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.N. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Arun Kumar,Saumitra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard H.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent-1 District Basic Education Officer.

¶6

Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade of Ghulab Singh Purv Madhyamik Vidyalay Samaythan Bhiti, Gorakhpur ( hereinafter referred to as 'Institution' ) after approval of respondent-1 District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur ( hereinafter referred to as 'DBEO' ) vide letter dated 24.12.1992. Committee of Management issued appointment letter to petitioner on 28.12.1992 and in pursuance thereof, he joined Institution on 01.01.1993. His salary was not paid, though Institution is in grant-in-aid and liability for payment of salary is on State Exchequer under the provisions of U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1978'). Learned counsel for petitioner admit that under interim orders passed by this Court, petitioner is getting salary.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for DBEO states that approval letters and orders of post creation are not available in the office of DBEO. However, he could not dispute that no discreet enquiry was conducted by DBEO in this matter. So long as, letter of approval is not cancelled after making enquiry, in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to parties concerned, it is not justified on the part of respondent-1 i.e.

¶8

DBEO, not to make payment of salary to petitioner.

¶9

In these circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition directing Respondent-DBEO to make an enquiry in accordance with law after giving opportunity to all concerned parties and pass appropriate order within two months. Till passing of fresh order as directed above, present status in respect of payment of salary to petitioner shall be continued.

¶10

Order Date :- 10.8.2018 Siddhant Sahu

Bhupendra Kumar Pandey v. D.B.E.O. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Kumar Pandey v. D.B.E.O. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thakur Ji Brajman Mandir and Others Vs Smt. Munni Devi and Others

Shiv Shankar Tripathi Vs Collector and D.M. and Others.

Ramakant Yadav Vs D.I.O.S.Deoria and Ohters

Raja Ram Vs D.D.C. and Others

S.B. Lal Vs Collector

Murli Manohar Ojha Vs State of U.P. and Others