The writ petition challenging non-extension of service was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner resigned. The Court ordered payment of salary for the period served.
Salary granted for the period worked.
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.
WPSS No.1267 of 2014 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Niranjan Bhatt has given a statement before this Court that the writ petition has now become infructuous as the petitioner who sought benefit of extension of service till the end of academic session and infact got an interim order by this Court on 27.08.2014, has resigned from service w.e.f. 01.11.2014, which is also supported by the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4 in his counter.
In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed having become infructuous. However, the petitioner shall be given salary for the period for which he has worked.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 12.11.2014
ML
The Petitioner
The State/respondent nos. 1 to 3
Respondent no.4
Sudhanshu Dhulia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
