Disposed

Jai Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2023WRIA/15765/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a teacher appointed on compassionate grounds, seeks directions for payment of unpaid salary from 2014 to 2017. Court does not decide on merits but directs the District Basic Education Officer to decide the petitioner's pending representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

The District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within two months from the date of service of this order.

Jai Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182524

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15765 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Jai Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 to 5.

¶7

Petitioner in his writ petition has stated that he was appointed on 14.1.2010 as Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground in Surajdeen Bhagwandeen Junior High School, Pachdeora, Tehsil Sorao, District Prayagraj. Petitioner pursuant to his appointment continued to work in the said institution but later on due to some dispute he was not permitted to sign the attendance register with effect from November, 2014. Subsequently, in compliance of the order passed by this court, the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj has decided the entire controversy by passing an order on 16.9.2017, wherein finding has been recorded that petitioner was illegally restrained from signing the attendance register. After passing the order dated 16.9.2017, petitioner has been transferred to another institution i.e. Ramkali Balika Junior High School, Sonai, Karchhana District Prayagraj where he joined on 3.10.2017 and since then he is continuously getting salary from the State exchequer.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner's salary for the period from November, 2014 to September, 2017 has not been paid. Petitioner in respect of his grievance has already submitted a representation before the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj on 30.6.2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the representation filed by the petitioner is pending and has not been decided by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj till date.

¶9

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1 to 5 has very fairly submitted that the grievance of the petitioner can be looked into by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of with direction to the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, contained in Annexure No.7 to the writ petition, within a period of two months from the date of service of certified copy of this order.

¶11

It is made clear that this court has not adjudicated this writ petition on merits.

¶12

Order Date :- 20.9.2023 Salim

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jai Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Kumar Mishra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Sagar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Sudha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shreyansh (Minor) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Wazir Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others