VIJAY SHANKAR TEWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been referred for my opinion as a consequence of difference between two learned single Judges constituting the Division Bench which had heard this matter. Brother K. P. Singh was of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed as it raised disputed questions of fact. Brother B. L. Yadav, on the other hand, was of the opinion that on the facts established on the record, the petition deserved to be allowed and appropriate reliefs granted to the petitioners. That is how, the matter was placed before me.

(2.) THE facts material for the decision of this case have been elaborated in considerable detail by brother B. L. Yadav. It is hence not necessary to repeat the same here.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and given the matter anxious consideration, I am clearly of the opinion that on the facts which are not seriously disputed or which may be taken to have been established on the record, the petitioners are certainly entitled to the relief of mandamus directing the respondent to pay their salary and continue to pay the same till the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 3-12-1982 referred to above is set aside or adjudged null and void in the suit which has already been filed by the management. I do not agree, with profound respect, with brother K. P. Singh that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the petition involves disputed questions of fact.