SIYA RAM DWIVEDI Vs. THE ADMINISTRATOR, NAGAR MAHAPALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the petitioner might have worked during the period 1 -1 -1987 to 16 -6 -1988, but he has not worked under any authority of law. In fact, the action of the Tax Superintendent certainly cannot bind of the Administrator in the matter.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, I am constrained to observe that this is a peculiar case where the petitioner was permitted to work, without any order of the Administrator, by the Tax Superintendent and he has not been paid his salary for that period on the ground that there was no order of the Administrator appointing him on the post for which he has been asking for the salary. No -doubt, this writ petition has no merit in view of the materials on record. The writ petition raises so many disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into. It shall be, however, open to the petitioner now to make a representation to the Administrator narrating therein full facts and claiming salary for the period beginning from 1 -1 -1987 to 16 -8 -1988 in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. It shall be opens for the Administrator also to consider the matter and pass any order that he feels just and proper. With the above observations, this writ petition is finally disposed of There shall be no order as to costs.