LexVINOD SHARMA AND ORS. versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [BASIC] U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A VINOD SHARMA AND ORS. v. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [BASIC] U.P. AND ORS. MARCH 20, 1998 B (S.C. AGRAWAL, K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] )'- Service Law : U.P. Junior High Schools [Payment of Salary of Teacher and Other c Employees} Act, 1978-Salary-Claim for-Under the Act-In parity with Junior High Schools Teachers-By teachers of Primary Sections of a recognised junior high school-Claim of teachers accepted in writ petition- Another writ petition claiming arrears of salaries since 1975-Granted since 1991 i.e., date of judgement on the first writ petition-Plea that since teachers D of junior high schools getting the salary since 1975, they cannot be denied the right-Held, grant of arrears since 1991 not correct, having brought the ~.- teachers in parity with the teachers of junior high school-But in view of their claim, not entitled to be paid prior to the Act, i.e .. 1978-U.P. Recognised Basic Schools, Recruitmer.t and Conditions a/Service of Teachers and Other Employees Rules 1975-R JO & 2 [ej-UP. Recognised Basic Schools [Junior E High Schools Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers} Rules, 1978-Rule 2[ej-UP. Education Act, 1972-Sections 19[1} and 2[bj. Civil Procedure Code 1908 :- Section 11-Principle of Res-Juaicata- 1 Claim of teachers of Primary Sections of Junior High Schools-To receive F salary under Payment of Salary Act, 1978--Claim accepted by High Court in a writ petition by the teachers, against the respondents-Order of High ;s Court became final-Second writ petition claiming arrears of the salary since 1975-Arrears granted since the date a/judgement in first writ petition- • Plea of the State on the point of applicability of the Payment of Saiary Act, 1978-And on the point of date of applicability of the Act 1978-Held, pleas G not permissible, as the matter has become final inter-se parties. Appellants, Assistant Teachers of primary section of Recognised Junior High Schools, were not brought under Payment of Salary Act, which they claimed to be entitled to, since 1975, as per rule 10 ofU.P. Recognised Basic Schools, Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other H Employees, Rules, 1975. 382 V. SHARMA v. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION 383 Appellants filed writ petitions before High Court, seeking directions A for payment of salary to them under the Payment of Salary Act, which was ,;. passed in 1978. Writ petition was allowed vide order dated 29.8.1991. SLP against this, by the respondent State was dismissed. Review to the SLP was also dismissed. As per the direction of High Court, salaries were paid to the appellants B as per the Act. But the arrears of the salary which were being claimed since 1.7.1975, were not paid. Appellants filed another writ petition before High Court for specific direction for payment of arrears of salary since 1.7.1975. High Court directed C to pay the arrears wef. 29.8. 1991 i.e., the date of judgement in earlier writ petition. In appeal to this Court, the State contended that Payment of Salaries Act, is not applicable to primary section as the same applies only to Junior High School, and that the appellants were entitled for the payment of salary D under the Act, since 11.2.1993, i.e., the date when Government issued such orders. The appellants contended that since teachers of Junior High School were getting salary under the Act since 1.7.1975, primary section teacher cannot be denied the right, being in the same school. Allowing the appeal, this court E HELD : I. When grievance of the appellants was accepted in the first Writ petition to bring them in parity with the Junior High School teacher, the payment from 1991 cannot be construed to be correct on the facts of the case. But considering the claim of appellants, they could in no case be t:" entitled to be paid prior to the Payment of Salary Act, 1978. Hence appellants' F claim since 1975 cannot be accepted. 1388-El 2.1. Even if the contention of the State may have merit in law, it cannot be sustained, as it has became final inter-se between parties. 1388-G I 2.2. The contention of the State that appellants were entitled for payment G of salary under the Payment of salary Act only since 11.2.1993 i.e., the date A when Government issued such orders, cannot be permitted to be raised in the present case since inter-se between the appellants and the respondents including State, the matter has became final by the High Court Judgement
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.