NANKU PRASAD TRIPATHI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 15.8.1976 in the institution of respondent No. 4. The appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher was approved by the Inspector, Sanskrit Pathshala, U. P., Allahabad, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 24.3.1977, initially as a temporary teacher till the end of the session, which was subsequently corrected by order dated 15.12.1977 clarifying that the approval granted for appointment of the petitioner was as a permanent teacher. The petitioner was being paid salary as an Assistant Teacher till February, 1979. Thereafter on 1.3.1979 the institution of respondent No. 4 was upgraded by the respondent No. 1 and placed in Category II. The petitioner continued to work as an Assistant Teacher but since after March, 1979, the salary of the petitioner was not paid to him despite the petitioner approaching the respondents by way of filing representations, copies of which have been filed as Annexures-4 to 16 to the writ petition, the petitioner filed this writ petition with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from 1.3.1979 onwards and to continue to pay the future salary also.

(2.) I have heard Sri Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri Awasthi, learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents at length and perused the record.

(3.) The main contention of Sri Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher as well as the approval granted by the respondent No. 2 vide orders dated 24.3.1977/15.12.1977 is still continuing and without the same having been cancelled or withdrawn, the petitioner cannot be deprived of payment of salary specially when the petitioner is continuing to serve as Assistant Teacher in the institution, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents.