Committee Of Management P.N.V. ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3369 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 606 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Committee Of Management P.N.V. Inter College
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Indresh Dubey
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Sri Y.K. Saxena for the appellant; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2; and Sri V.K. Singh for the third respondent.

In Re:- Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2022

Reply to the counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed today, which is taken on record.

Considering the explanation offered in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation applications, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Office to assign a regular number to the appeal.

In Re:- Appeal

This intra court appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.05.2022 passed in Writ-A No.4113 of 2022 whereby the writ petition of the third respondent for a direction upon the second respondent (District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur) to ensure payment of salary to the writ petitioner as that payable to the principal has been disposed off by requiring the second respondent to make payment of salary of the writ petitioner of the grade of Principal from the date 28.12.2020 till any adverse order is passed against him in light of law laid down by this Court in Ram Raseeley Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-A No.58665 of 2015).

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner (third respondent herein) was appointed as officiating Principal in the institution of which the appellant herein claims to be the committee of management. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge relies a statement of the counsel representing the appellant that the salary is not being paid because a number of proceedings are pending though no final orders have been passed in those proceedings.

It is not in dispute that an officiating Principal is entitled to the salary as payable to a Principal and it is also not in dispute that the third respondent (the writ petitioner) was appointed as an officiating Principal.

Once that is the position and it was the admitted case of the appellant's counsel in the writ proceedings that no final orders have yet been passed, we do not find a good reason to interfere with the order impugned.

Further, if any adverse order has been passed or is passed, affecting the right to claim salary, then, as per the direction of the learned Single Judge, that can be taken into account and the matter can be represented to the authority concerned.

Subject to above, the appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.2.2023

AKShukla/-