AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The High Court in the judgment recorded the following findings:
"The result is, as noticed above, that although it cannot be said that the order dated 30th December, 1965/7th January, 1966 suspending the plaintiff from service of the defendant College was illegal or null and void inoperative against the plaintiff from its inception, it did cease to be operative with effect-from 17th October, 1975 on the expiry of the 60 days from the commencement of the U.P. Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975."
Having recorded this finding, the High Court refused to exercise its discretion to grant a declaration that the order of suspension ceased to be operative with effect from 17th October, 1975. We think that the High Court was wrong in refusing to grant the declaration. We, therefore, declare that the order of suspension ceased to be operative with effect from 17th October, 1975. The appeal against the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 2038 of 1970 is disposed of accordingly.
In the appeal against the judgment of the High Court in 1st appeal No. 450 of 1982 we do not see how the appellant can be denied his salary for the period between 20th February, 1964 to January 15, 1966, the date on which the effective order of suspension was communicated to him. Instead of sending the case back to the trial court for determining the amount, we think that a decree may straightway be passed for a sum of ` 10,000/-which will include salary for the period, interest up to date and costs. It is so decreed. This amount will carry interest @9% from today, if not paid immediately. The decree of the trial court and High Court are set aside. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.