DHARAM VIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.4.1977 passed by Sri R. P. Misra, the then Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1976 arising out of Original Suit No. 498 of 1972, Dharam Vir Singh v. State of U. P. and another, of the Court of the then Munsif, Kairana, district Muzaffarnagar. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the State of U. P., Director of Education, U. P. at Allahabad and District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar respectively whereas respondent No. 4 is the Manager, Ram Dai Inter College, Sikka (Silwar). Muzaffarnagar.

(2.) The case giving rise to the second appeal may be stated briefly for proper appreciation. The plaintiff/appellant Dharam Vir Singh brought the suit in the lower court for recovery of Rs. 4,153.12 as arrears of his salary for the period 8.7.1971 to 7.7.1972 together with interim relief. His case was that in consequence of advertisement for the post of a lecturer in Biology subject in Ram Dai Inter College, Sikka (Silwar), district Muzaffarnagar, he had applied for the said post and was selected by the Selection Committee of the college after interview. He joined his post on 7.7.1971 for the academic session 1971-72 on basic pay of Rs. 215 + Rs. 111 as D.A. + Rs. 8 as interim relief total Rs. 334 per month. He served the institution for the full session and was thus entitled to get salary at the above rate including the interim relief granted by the State Government with effect from 1.3.1972. His salary totalling Rs. 4,153.12 was not paid. After 31st March, 1971, the lecturers of recognised institutions were paid their salary through cheques issued by the State Government, but no cheque had been issued to him. After serving a notice under Section 80. C.P.C., he brought the suit.

(3.) The State of U. P. resisted the suit with the defence that the appointment of the plaintiff was without approval of the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar. No letter of appointment had been issued to him by the Committee of Management of the institution. His appointment being not legal and in accordance with Regulations of the Board, he was not entitled to get any salary from the State Government. He could seek his remedy only against the defendant No.2-Manager of the college. With this defence, the State of U. P. denied its liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff towards his alleged salary.