SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(SC) 358

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S.VENKATARAMIAH
Rajendra Prashad – Appellant
Versus
Kayastha Pathshalas – Respondent


JUDGMENT : - The High Court in the judgment recorded the following findings :

"The result is, as noticed above, that although it cannot be said that the order dated 30th December, 1965/7th January, 1966 suspending the plaintiff from service of the defendant College was illegal or null and void inoperative against the plaintiff from its inception, it did cease to be operative with effect-from 17th October, 1975 on the expiry of the 60 days from the commencement of the U.P. Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975."

2. Having recorded this finding, the High Court refused to exercise its discretion to grant a declaration that the order of suspension ceased to be operative with effect from 17th October, 1975. We think that the High Court was wrong in refusing to grant the declaration. We, therefore, declare that the order of suspension ceased to be operative with effect from 17th October, 1975. The appeal against the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 2038 of 1970 is disposed of accordingly.

3. In the appeal against the judgment of the High Court in 1st appeal No. 450 of 1982 : (reported in 1983 Lab IC NOC 24) we do not see how the appellant can be denied his salary for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top