The court held that a petitioner employed as a Daftri holding additional charge of a Clerk is not entitled to Clerk's salary as it was an internal arrangement. No legally enforceable right was violated, so the writ petition was dismissed.
Petition dismissed holding no statutory right for additional salary exists.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP(T) No. 13940/2008
05.10.2010 Present: Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. for the respondents/ State
There is no dispute that petitioner who was employed as a Daftri was also given work of a Clerk. Insofar as salary of Daftri is concerned, undisputedly petitioner has received the same. Now the work of clerk was given to him in addition to his prescribed duty by way of additional charge. It was by way of an internal arrangement made by the office keeping in view the attending circumstances. Thus petitioner is not entitled for salary of a clerk.
the petitioner stands violated. Present petition does not warrant any interference and the same is dismissed.
( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. October 05, 2010 (rana)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner entitled to clerk's salary for additional charges.
Whether disciplinary proceedings constitute violation of legally enforceable right.
Petitioner
Respondents
Sanjay Karol
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
