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

2003 Supreme(SC) 612

RUMA PAL, P.VENKATARAMA REDDI
RAI SUDHIR PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE QUESTION RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL PAY FOR OFFICIATING IN THE TWO POSTS OF PRINCIPAL AND MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT WHILE HE WAS HOLDING THE POST OF A PROFESSOR IN PATLIPUTRA MEDICAL COLLEGE, DHANBAD.

3. THE NOTIFICATION UNDER WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO DISCHARGE ADDITIONAL DUTIES AS PRINCIPAL, STATED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS APPOINTED IN PLACE OF THE ERSTWHILE PRINCIPAL WHO HAD RETIRED AND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS TO OFFICIATE AS PRINCIPAL ON THE VACANT POST IN HIS OWN PAY SCALE. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS WHOLLY TEMPORARY AND WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE REGULAR PRINCIPAL. ALTHOUGH THE NOTIFICATION IS DATED 14-2-1997, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT IN FACT TOOK OVER CHARGE AS PRINCIPAL FROM 1-2-1997 IMMEDIATELY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF THE PREVIOUS PRINCIPAL. THE SECOND NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON 26-121997 WAS COUCHED IN SIMILAR LANGUAGE AND THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE SUPERINTENDENT WHO HAD RETIRED ON 30-11-1997. HERE TOO, THE APPELLANT TOOK OVER THE CHARGE OF THE POST OF SUPERINTENDENT W.E.F. 1-12-1997.

4. THE APPELLANT RETIRE






















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