Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhagwati, CJI., G.L.Oza, J.
Deo Narain Singh
Versus
Daddan Singh
Case No., 178 of 1986
Date of Decision, 9/3/86
U.P - Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act 1978 – U .P - Recognized Basic Schools and Junior High School (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules - 1978 - Rule 15 - Basic Education Act 1972 - Application for permission - This is a fit case in which order should be reviewed because not only High Court but also this Court proceeded on basis that Act applicable was U. P - Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act 1978 - In fact this Act was not applicable and application for permission to discharge respondents was made to Basic Education Officer under Rule 15 of U.P - Recognized Basic Schools and Junior High School (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules - 1978 framed - Held, Court therefore set aside Court order as also order of High Court on ground that it was not U - P - Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act 1978 which applied but U. P - Recognized Basic Schools and Junior High Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules 1978 framed under Basic Education Act 1972 - High Court will consider matter in this light and decide whether termination of service of respondents was valid or not - It will be open to respondents to raise any contentions which are available to them - Parties will be at liberty to produce any further documents having a bearing on issues arising in writ petition - Since respondents have been out of service for a long time we would request High Court to dispose of writ petition before it as far as possible within three months from today - Review petition is disposed of
(1) WE are of the view that this is a fit case in which the order dated 27/01/1986 should be reviewed because not only the High Court but also this court proceeded on the basis that the Act applicable was the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978. In fact this Act was not applicable and the application for permission to discharge the respondents was made to the Basic Education Officer under Rule 15 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools and Junior High School (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules. 1978 framed under the Basic Education Act, 1972. We, therefore, set aside our order as also the order of the High court on the ground that it was not the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 which applied but the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools and Junior High Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 framed under the Basic Education Act, 1972. The High court will consider the matter in this light and decide whether the termination of service of the respondents was valid or not. It will be open to the respondents to raise any contentions which are available to them. Parties will be at liberty to produce any further documents having a bearing on the issues arising in the writ petition. Since the respondents have been out of service for a long time, we would request the High court to dispose of the writ petition before it as far as possible within three months from today. The review petition is disposed of accordingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
