Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Nazimuddin Barbhuiya – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Senior Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7.
2. The petitioners counsel submits that the petitioner No. 3 would not like to pursue the matter, as per instructions received by him from the petitioner No. 3. As such, the petitioner No. 3 may be deleted as a party from this case.
3. The prayer of the petitioners counsel is allowed. The petitioner No. 3 is accordingly deleted as a party from the case.
4. The petitioners prayer is for setting aside the order dated 11.01.2005 and order dated 24.09.2010, which is to the effect that the petitioners are illegal appointees, who have been appointed against non-existent posts. The further prayer of the petitioner is that a direction should be issued to the State respondents to release the current salary and arrear salary of the petitioners.
5. The petitioners counsel submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were appointed as LDA-cum-Typist in the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Dalgaon ICDS Project against sanctioned vacant posts on 11.11.1998. However, as they were not being given their salary, the p
Suppression of material facts by a party invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution can lead to the imposition of costs and dismissal of the petition.
Long-standing service should be protected unless substantial evidence justifies termination, especially when interim orders are in place.
Employees cannot be denied salary for work performed unless their appointments are legally declared illegal, emphasizing the principle against 'Begar'.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of natural justice, arbitrary actions by state authorities, and justified delay in approaching the court.
Process of judicial interpretation lies in extending or applying by analogy ratio decidendi of an earlier case to a subsequent case which differs from it in certain essentials.
The court ruled that past employment irregularities do not excuse non-payment of salaries owed under earlier judicial orders, establishing a duty to pay on the principle of quantum meruit.
A court may exercise its power of review upon the discovery of new, material evidence that was unavailable despite due diligence, if such evidence establishes that an appointment met constitutional s....
An employee's salary cannot be withheld without proper departmental proceedings, and irregular appointments can be regularized through continued service and promotions.
Salary claims in public service are contingent upon the legality of the appointment; illegal appointments do not confer entitlement to salary.
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
