DHARAMVIR
A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 4, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
B
Se1Vice Law :
School-Teacher--Directions regarding appointment and payment of
salary.
C:
In appeals to this Court on the question whether the appellant is
entitled to salary for the period during which he had worked as a teacher:
Disposing the appeals, this Court
HELD : The District Inspector of Schools inspected the School and D
found that the appellant had been working since September 3, 1985 as
· teacher since the referred teacher had not joined and one other teacher had
also left the post. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the payment of
salary. However, it would be open to the Management, in consultation with
the District Inspector of Schools, to get it verified whether the salary in E
fact was paid to the appellant for the period in question. If he has already
received it, he is not entitled to the salary now for the same period. Further
the appellant's entitled to continue in service according to the rules be
decided by the appropriate authority. [312-B-C; E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8305-06 F
of 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.89 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. No. 3318 & 741 of 1986.
P .P. Rao, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, for the Appellant.
T.N. Singh, for R.B. Misra for the Respondents.
Ms. Rachna Gupta for the Management.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
313
G
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
Leave granted.
B
We have heard the counsel for the parties. The only controversy in
this case is whether the appellant is entitled for salary for the period during
which he had worked. Though the controversy has been raised as to
whether he was validly appointed in accordance with the proceedings
prescribed by the appropriate rules, it is not necessary for us to go into
that controversy as it is not the question in issue. The District Inspector of
Schools, Bulandshahar in his report dated February 1, 1989 had stated that
he had inspected the Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Raunija on January
25, 1989 and found that the appellant had been working since September
C 3, 1985 as teacher since the reserved teacher, viz., Kanchi Mal Gupta, had
not joined and one Vijay Kumar had also left the post. Consequently, since
the Maths Teacher post was vacant and the appellant had been working
ever since September 3, 1985, the appellant is entitled to the payment of
salary.
D
E
F
G
Ms. Rachna Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respon-
dent~Management has stated that the manager and the appellant, had
colluded and got double payment. Salary had been duly paid pursuant to
the direction of this Court. But he was paid by the Management itself for
the period from September 1985 to June 1988. If that is so, it would be
open to the Management, in consultation with the District Inspector of
Schools, to have it verified whether the salary in fact was paid to the
appellant for the period in question. If he has already received it, he is not
entitled to the salary now for the same period. We also direct that
appellant's entitlement to continue in service according to the rules be
decided by the appropriate authority and the post would be filled in
accordance with rules. In case the appellant becomes over-aged for con-
sideration, necessary relaxation will be given and he will be considered
along with the candidates to be interviewed by the appropriate Committee
in accordance with the rules.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
T.N.A~
Appeals disposed.
I
Lex