Disposed

Dayawati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2018WRIA/8233/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition for arrears of salary of a retired assistant teacher. Without deciding merits, the court directed the competent authority to resolve the grievance expeditively, referencing prior case law, within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's grievance regarding arrears of salary and decide the same expeditively within two months.

Dayawati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8233 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dayawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla,Satish Chandra Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yatindra

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Shri Yatindra, Advocate appears for second and third respondents.

¶6

The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to the respondents to make payment of the arrears of salary since July to 9th December, 2015 to the petitioner to which the petitioner has performed his duty in continuance till the end of session.

¶7

This much is reflected from the record in question that the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the institution in question. He has attained the age of superannuation on 30th June 2015 and as per the relevant Government Order sessions benefit has been extended to the petitioner and he was permitted to perform his duty till the end of session i.e. 31st March, 2016. Once arrears of salary for the period in question has not been given to him, he has preferred the present writ petition.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances this Court in Writ-A No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) has passed a detailed order on 19.08.2017 and the similar direction may also be passed in this writ petition also.

¶9

Shri Yatindra, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly states that the claim of the petitioner would be decided by the competent authority i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Bulandshahar.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the competent authority to consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in Angad Yadav & Ors. (Supra) expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶11

Order Date :- 20.3.2018 A. Pandey

Dayawati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayawati v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Preeti Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raja Ram Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Kumar Yadav Adn 2 Others Vs State of Up and 5 Others

Renu Gupta Vs State of Up and 3 Others

C/M Sant Kabir Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U P and 2 Others