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

1984 Supreme(All) 221

K.S.VARMA, S.S.AHMAD
Committee Of Management Of Dadanr Inter College, Dadaur, District Rae Bareli – Appellant
Versus
District Inspector Of Schools, Rae Bareli – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
B.C. Saxena

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Act provides salary to teachers before the 20th day of the month, with mechanisms for payment if default occurs by the management (!) - Absent teachers who have not been suspended or dismissed remain entitled to salary; management may initiate disciplinary proceedings to suspend or dismiss, but cannot withhold salary solely for absence without termination/suspension (!) - If vacancies exist only after termination or suspension, fresh appointments may be made; absent teachers’ appointments cannot be used to justify new hires while they remain in service (!) (!) - Disciplinary procedures and regulatory framework allow suspension with subsistence allowance, not full salary, if misconduct proven (!) - The court dismissed writ petitions, holding teachers’ salary must be paid as long as appointment subsists, and the management cannot appoint fresh teachers until vacancies are created by termination or suspension (!) (!) (!)

What is... How to determine salary entitlement for teachers absent from duty under the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and others Employees) Act, 1971?

What is... What are the rights of teachers to receive salary when their appointment subsists but they are not performing duties due to alleged safety concerns or other reasons?

What is... What are the conditions under which a management may withhold or suspend salary or initiate disciplinary proceedings against teachers absent from duty?


JUDGMENT

E. S. Varma, J.

1. Opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 in writ petition No. 1585 of 1983 are Assistant Teachers in the institution run by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the said teachers have been absenting themselves from the institution and have not been attending to teaching work from various dates. According to the petitioner the said opposite parties did not inform the reason for their absence to the Manager or the Principal of the College. On 2-2-1983, opposite parties 3 to 8 addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of Education in which they complained that the Principal of college on 31-1-1983 misbehaved with Shri Basudeo Verma, Opposite party no. 7. Opposite party no. 1 vide his letter dated 7-2-1983 intimated this fact to the Manager of the College. A true copy of the said letter is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. By Annexure 4, opposite party no. 1 required the Manager of the College to make an inquiry at his level and to intimate the result of the inquiry to him by post. A true copy of the letter is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. After the receipt of the said letter, the Manager of the College made an inquiry into the allegations levelled by Shr










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