Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks salary from 2014 grant-in-aid. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. section 50 mandates state salary liability. (Para 4) |
| 3. dispute over token grant and post sanction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. appointment valid; salary date at issue. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. precedent invalidates token grant practice. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. 2014 go created posts; grant restored. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. state liable for arrears from 2014. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner from the date of including the school S.R.D. Bahuguna Inter College, Sevelakala, Dehradun under the Grant-In-Aid i.e. 28.2.2014.
ii) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iii) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The facts narrated in the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner was a
State liable for teachers' salaries from grant-in-aid date when posts created; token grants invalid; employees entitled to arrears despite delayed absorption and institute not litigating.
Eligible PTA college teachers entitled to grant-in-aid salary despite NET/SLET lack post-dispensation; discriminatory denial while granting others violates Articles 14,16; rules persist without repea....
PTA-appointed Assistant Professor from reserved category meeting relaxed 50% Master's marks and eligibility test criteria entitled to Grant-in-Aid salary from appointment date; denial despite parity ....
Employees appointed before the establishment of regulations under the Act 2000 are entitled to salary from the State Exchequer, as their appointments were valid under the Act.
(1) Payment of salary to teachers shall be made on the basis of seniority and subject of teaching has no relevance.(2) Review – Provision of review is not to scrutinize correctness of decision render....
The State Government's liability for salary payments to college staff as per Section 60-E of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, and the inability of government orders to override statutory rules.
The court reinforced that salaries must be paid to teachers based on regularized appointments, rejecting any arbitrary withholding by the State as per established constitutional rights, regardless of....
The discretionary nature of state policy decisions regarding pay revisions is upheld, with no obligation to adopt central schemes mandatorily.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of teachers in minority institutions to salary out of grant-in-aid, as clarified by the Bihar State University Act, 1976, and the j....
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
