Allowed¶11

Avinash Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Higher Edu. Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC3 May 2023WRIA/4880/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ - A No. 4880 of 2019, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Pankaj Bhatia, J., order dated 3.5.2023. Officiating Principal; salary withheld; Statute 1.22; First Statutes of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University; bar on salary to officiating holder; struck down; Dr. Bramhanand Shukla vs State of U.P.; Writ Petition No.1590 of 2008; mandamus; arrears of salary; Sri Adarsh Sanskrit Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Bahraich; writ petition allowed; payment within four months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay salary for the post of Principal to the petitioner for the period he held the post on officiating basis, to pay current salary month to month, and to compute and pay arrears of salary within four months from production of a certified copy of the order. ¶11

Avinash Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Higher Edu. Lucknow and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, appointed as officiating Principal on 01.08.2012, is entitled to payment of salary for the post of Principal despite the bar under Statute 1.22 of the First Statutes of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, in view of that statute having been struck down by this Court in Writ Petition No.1590 of 2008 (Dr. Bramhanand Shukla).

¶8

Court's answer

Since Statute 1.22 of the First Statutes of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University has been struck down by this Court, there is no reason why the petitioner would not be paid the salary payable to a person appointed as a Principal; the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The respondents are directed to pay salary for the post of Principal to the petitioner for the period he was appointed on officiating capacity, and to pay the current salary month to month.

¶13

Key takeaways

The arrears of salary shall be computed and paid to the petitioner within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petitioner, appointed officiating Principal on 01.08.2012 at Sri Adarsh Sanskrit Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Bahraich, was denied salary on the ground of Statute 1.22 of the First Statutes of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, which barred payment of salary to a person holding the post on officiating basis. That statute had already been struck down by this Court on 29.05.2019 in Writ Petition No.1590 of 2008 (Dr. Bramhanand Shukla vs State of U.P. and others). Holding that, with the provision struck down, there was no reason to deny the salary payable to a person appointed as Principal, the Court allowed the writ petition, directed payment of salary for the officiating period, payment of current salary month to month, and computation and payment of arrears within four months of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4880 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Avinash Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Higher Edu. Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:

¶6

"(i). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the post of Principal, Sri Adarsh Sanskrit Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Bahraich, for the current month onward as and when it becomes due to him;

¶7

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrears if salary to the petitioner for the post of Principal, Sri Adarsh Sanskrit Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Bahraich, for the period from 01.08.2012 onward;"

¶8

The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an officiating Principal on 01.08.2012, however, the salary of the petitioner working on the post of officiating principal was not paid mainly on the ground that the same is barred by virtue of the Statute 1.22 of the First Statutes of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University which creates a bar for the payment of salary to a person who is holding the said post on officiating basis.

¶9

The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the said provision came up for consideration before this Court and the same was struck down vide order dated 29.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.1590 of 2008 (Dr. Bramhanand Shukla vs State of U.P. and others).

¶10

In view of the said provisions struck down by this Court as recorded above, there is no reason, why the petitioner would not be paid the salary, which is payable to a person appointed as a Principal, as such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed .

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶12

The respondents are directed to ensure the payment of salary for the post of Principal to the petitioner for the period when the petitioner was appointed to the post of Principal on officiating

¶13

capacity and the petitioner shall be paid the current salary as directed above on month to month basis.

¶14

The arrears of salary shall be computed and paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 akverma

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Avinash Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Higher Edu. Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Higher Edu. Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Pher Verma Vs U.P. Jal Nigam Thru. M.D. Lko. and Ors.

Kushlawati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Lko. and Ors.

Manoj Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Basic Edu. Lucknow and Ors.

Dr. Tej Veer Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Higher Education Deptt. and Ors.

Hoshiyar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas Lko. and 4 Others

Ramesh Chandra Shrivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas Govt of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others