Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 Parishad. Though counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 though his counsel but he learned counsel is not present. Sri Prabhat Rai, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 is present but he is not able to tell as to why the salary has not been paid to the petitioner till date. Since the Court is not getting any assistance from them so it is directed that respondents no. 3 and 5 are shall be present in Court and explain as to why the salary of the petitioner has not been paid so far. List this matter on 30th September on which date appropriate orders will be passed in this matter. Sri Prabhat Rai, holding brief for Sri Neeraj Tripathi, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 5 and the learned standing counsel for respondents 3 & 5 are directed to make compliance of this order. The office is directed to furnish a copy of this order by Monday, i.e 17.08.2009. 13.08.2009" "Vide order dated 13.08.2009 the respondents no. 3 and 5 both were required to appear before this Court on 30.09.2009 in person to explain as to why the petitioner has not been paid salary so far but since 30.09.2009 was declared as holiday, Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 stated that the respondent no. 3 is not present. Sri Vipul Tripathi, holding brief on behalf of Sri Neeraj Tripathi stated that he has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 5 but it appears that the respondent no. 5 has engaged some other counsel. It is not concerned with the Court as to how many counsels were engaged in a matter but once notice has been issued to the party concerned and he is aware with the case, it is his obligation to keep watch of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents no. 3 and 5 both are directed to be present in person before this Court on 09.10.2009. Sri Rai and Sri Tripathi shall communicate this order to respondents no. 3 and 5 respectively as the same has been passed in their presence. 05.10.2009" "On 13.08.2009 this Court passed order directing the respondents no. 3 and 5 both to be present in person before this Court to explain as to why the salary of petitioner has not been paid though he is a regularly appointed teacher in Junior High School maintained by Basic Shiksha Parishad. The respondent no. 3, Sri Rajesh Kumar is present but the respondent no. 5 is not present. Sri Vipul Tripathi holding brief on behalf of Sri Neeraj Tripathi states that he has communicated the direction of this Court to respondent no. 5 but he has not responded. Let non-bailable warrant be issued to respondent no. 5 to ensure his presence before this Court on 21.10.2009. The office shall take appropriate steps for compliance of this order. The respondent no. 3 shall also remain present on the next date. List this matter on 21.10.2009. 09.10.2009" 9. The reluctant attitude shown by the respondent no. 5 compelled this Court in issuing non-bailable warrant on 9.10.2009 as already noted above. However, this time, the Registry of this Court came to rescue of the respondents by not taking steps for issuing non bailable warrant as directed and on 21.10.2009 a report was submitted that due to rush of work, no further action
3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State of U.P. and others 1003 could be taken by them and, therefore, they may be granted some further time to comply with the Court's order dated 9.10.2009. 10. In the meantime, an application no. 274455 of 2009 was filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 stating that firstly due to mistake of Sri Neeraj Tripathi, Advocate, he did not get any information of the order dated 17.8.2009 and, therefore, could not appear on 5.10.2009 and secondly that on 6.10.2009 when he received the information by that time he suffered viral fever and hence could not appear on 9.10.2009. The above statement is sought to be supported by a medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Sonebhadra dated 12.10.2009 certifying that the respondent no. 5 Rajesh Kumar was in his treatment as an outdoor patient since 8.10.2009 to 10.10.2009 and fitness certificate is being issued from 12.10.2009. 11. It is to be noted that though respondent no. 5 is impleaded by his office and, therefore, he ought to be represented by learned Standing Counsel appointed by the State Government but in this case, the application has been filed through Sri Neeraj Tripathi, Advocate, who has also filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 5 earlier. The respondent no. 5 thus has engaged this private counsel but whether for the said purpose he obtained permission from the Government or not is not clear from the record. 12. On the request of learned counsels for the parties, this matter was taken up on 28.10.2009 on which date Sri Manohar Prasad, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sonebhadra and Sri Rajesh Kumar, Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sonebhadra, both were present. A supplementary counter affidavit sworn on 27.10.2009 at 3.10. P.M. by the respondent 3 was also filed stating that by cheque dated 15.10.2009, salary of the petitioner for the period of March' 2005 to October' 2009 has been paid and a photocopy of Treasury Cheque dated 26.10.2009 was annexed. In para 4 and 5 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is said that due to some confusion and misconception, some delay has occurred in making payment of salary to the petitioner, which is regretted and it is said that since the petitioner's salary has been paid, therefore, no further cause of action survives and, the writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous. The deponent of the affidavit has also tendered his unconditional apology. 13. Normally, when the relief sought in the writ petition is met in the hands of the respondents and this Court finds that no further cause of actions survives, as a normal practice, the writ petitions are dismissed having become infructuous but here is a case where the petitioner's salary was detained by the respondents illegally and without any lawful justification, as is evident from the above facts, and when she made this complaint to this Court in August 2006, even then the respondents did not look into the matter as a model and law abiding employer having some sense of sympathy and justice for their employees, but here in a casual fashion they filed incomplete and vague affidavits shifting blame from one and another. No attempt shown to be made to remedy the grievance of the petitioner and that is how she was compelled to suffer not only herself but the entire family for a further
Page 1 and 2: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 7 and 8: 3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 29: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 81 and 82:
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?