Disposed

Smt. Praveena Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2019WRIA/1511/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered the District Basic Education Officer to decide the petitioner's claim for unpaid salary for the period he was deprived of session benefits, relying on a prior ruling that deprivation was illegal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to decide the matter of payment of salary for the period the petitioner was entitled to, within 6 weeks.

Smt. Praveena Sharma Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1511 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Praveena Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Neel Kamal Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivam Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

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 25th December, 2015.

¶7

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).

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 29.1.2019 saqlain

Smt. Praveena Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Praveena Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeshwari Saraswat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Vinod Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Narayan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Prem Narayan Lal Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sarita Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others