Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 677 of 2013 Appellant :- District Inspector Of Schools Bulandshahr Respondent :- Raj Kumar Singh And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- R.B. Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- Ravi Agarwal,Pankaj Lal,Prem Kumar Chaurasia
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Order on Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 345638 of 2017
1. Heard.
2. This is an application seeking substitution of legal heirs and representatives of deceased respondent no. 1-Raj Kumar Singh.
3. Application is allowed.
4. Let legal heirs and representatives of respondent no. 1 be substituted during course of the day.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 A. Verma
Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 677 of 2013 Appellant :- District Inspector Of Schools Bulandshahr Respondent :- Raj Kumar Singh And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- R.B. Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- Ravi Agarwal,Pankaj Lal,Prem Kumar Chaurasia
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Order on Application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
1. Heard.
2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
3. Delay in filing appeal is explained satisfactorily. It is hereby condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
4. Let appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continued to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two numbers.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 A. Verma
Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 677 of 2013 Appellant :- District Inspector Of Schools Bulandshahr Respondent :- Raj Kumar Singh And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- R.B. Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- Ravi Agarwal,Pankaj Lal,Prem Kumar Chaurasia
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for appellant. None has appeared on behalf of respondents even in revised call. Hence, we proceed to decide the matter after hearing learned counsel for appellant.
2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgment dated 10.12.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1647 of 2008 – Raj Kumar singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools and others, whereby petitioner-respondents writ petition has been allowed directing appellant to pay salary to petitioner-respondent for period 26.08.1988 to 2003 and since it has been wrongly paid to another person, it is responsibility of appellant and shall be recovered from the officer who is found guilty of negligence or connivance with illegal beneficiary. Relevant part of impugned judgment reads as follows :
“Therefore the State Government is at liberty to fix the responsibility for the illegal payment made to Kunwarpal Singh and recover the said amount from the Officer who is found guilty of negligence or connivance with the Kunwarpal Singh.
For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order dated 05.12.2007 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the respondent no. 1 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed.
The petitioner shall be paid his salary from the year 26.08.1988 to 2003 within three momths from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is allowed.
No order as to cost.”
3. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that despite direction been given by the Court no responsibility has been fixed and no attempt has been made in this regard.
4. Sofar as merit of matter is concerned, it cannot be disputed that petitioner was denied salary for no fault on his part, therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly directed that he was entitled for salary as he was exonerated from the criminal case.
5. It also could not be explained why salary was continued to be paid to Kunwarpal Singh, despite his writ petition, special appeal and SLP having been dismissed.
6. Be that as it may, sofar as petitioner-respondent is concerned, for the fault of authorities, he cannot be made responsible for denial of salary. Otherwise also it will amount to permitting authorities to take advantage of their own fault.
7. Learned Standing Counsel could not point out any illegality in the judgment in question and we therefore, find no merit in appeal.
8. Dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 A. Verma