Dharmvir vs State Of U.P. And Others
- CitationAIRONLINE 1995 SC 27
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a person has worked in a teaching position for a substantial period because the substantive post-holder did not join and no replacement was made, he is entitled to receive salary for the period of his actual work, unless he has already been paid that salary by the management. Where there is a dispute whether salary for a period of work has already been paid, the appropriate authority must verify the payment records in consultation with the District Inspector of Schools, and if payment is established, the person cannot claim the same salary again. Where a person's eligibility for continued service depends on age-related rules, and he has become over-aged during the period of his work, the appropriate authority must grant necessary age relaxation and consider him for appointment according to the prescribed procedure.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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 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.
Ms. Rachna Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-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 consideration, 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.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free