REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SURYA DEO MISHRA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HARISH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA V. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
B.N.SINGH V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
SHRIKANT SHUKLA V. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. V. HARENDRA KUNWAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM KHELWAN PATHAK V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV TRIPATHI V. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
S.L.BATHLA V. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
ATMA RAM MITTAL VS. ISHWAR SINGH PUNIA [REFERRED TO]
SHREECHAMUNDIMOPEDSLTD VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION CSICINOD SECRETARIAT MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. LABH CHAND [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM BABU VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GABRIEL SAVER FERNANDES VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
SAHIB RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF MADRAS VS. K RAJAMANICKAM [REFERRED TO]
BURN STANDARD COMPANY LIMITED VS. DINABANDHU MAJUMDAR [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. M R E LTD:UNITED FILM EXHIBITORS:HOTEL LUCIYA:KOKERS:E M JOSE [REFERRED TO]
MAHMOOD HASAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR VS. PIRZADA GHULAM NABI [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAM CHARAN DAS VS. PYARE LAL [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM MANOHAR SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN RAI VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL GHAZIPUR [REFERRED TO]
KANORIA CHEMICALS AND INDIA LTD. V. U.P.S.E.B. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important issue, which is often confronting Courts, falls for determination by this Full Bench. An employee, continues in service beyond the superannuation age of 58 years on the strength of an interim order, is fastened with deduction of the amounts paid as salary from his retiral benefits on the dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous.

(2.) A learned single Judge of this Court was confronted with the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Harendra Kunwar 1995 All LJ 1603 and State of J&K v. Pirzada GhulamNabi 1998 (9) SCC 102 where it was held that incumbent who has continued in service beyond the age of superannuation on the strength of an interim order, may not be entitled to retain or receive salary in case the writ petition is ultimately dismissed either on merits or as infructuous. And the contrary view also of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Madras &Anr. v. K.M. Rajamanickam 1995 (2) SCC 98 : 1995-II-LLJ-677 and Burn Standard Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Dina Bandhu Majumdar & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1499 : 1995 (4) SCC 172 both followed by a learned single Judge of our Court in Ram Khelwan Pathak v. State of U.P. and others 1998 All LJ 1575 where it was held that an employee who actually worked on the strength of an interim order would be entitled to his salary even though the writ petition may have been dismissed subsequently. Thus, he referred the issue to a Larger Bench.

(3.) Minimal facts, necessary for deciding the issue in this petition are:

Click here to view full judgment.

SURYA DEO MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address