High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 08 AHC CK 0431

Vidya Shankar Lal vs Jagannath Prasad Srivastava and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 2 August 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ferdino Inacio Rebello, C.J · Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J
RESULT
Disposed Of

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 389 words
1.

The appellant, claiming himself to be the Headmaster of a Junior High School, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the order passed by the Basic Education Officer for reinstatement and payment of salary to the appellant.

2.

The appellant had earlier filed Suit No. 180 of 1977 on 08.08.1977, for an injunction to restrain the respondent Committee of Management of the institution in question from interfering with his work. The Committee of Management produced a resolution dated 05.06.1977 pointing out that his services were already terminated. The suit was decreed on 27.08.1979 but in appeal the order of the trial Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Second appeal preferred by the appellant against the same was dismissed.

3.

In spite of the order of the Civil Court, the Basic Education Officer passed an order in favour of the appellant herein for his reinstatement. That order was challenged by the respondent Committee of Management and Ors. before this Court by filing a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 9187 of 1984, which was allowed by judgment dated 27.11.2002 impugned in this appeal.

4.

The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that at the relevant time, he was not aware of the Government Notification dated 13th May, 1975.

5.

Even assuming that this notification existed at that time, that could have been the subject matter of the proceedings before the Civil Court. In our opinion, therefore, the present proceedings are either barred by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. Though, the issue pertains to an order of reinstatement, but considering the earlier finding of the Civil Court, the learned Judge was right in the conclusion that has been arrived at.

6.

In the light of that, no interference is called with the order impugned. Appeal stands dismissed.

7.

Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, makes a grievance that till date the appellant has not been paid his terminal dues.

8.

If the appellant is entitled to any terminal dues, the respondent Committee of Management shall compute the same and the respondent No. 4 shall pay to the appellant not later than eight weeks from today along with interest, if any, on the same.

9.

With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.