Ram Pyare Tripathi Vs. District Inspector of Schools and anr.

Ram Pyare Tripathi vs District Inspector of Schools and anr.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Aug 13, 2003

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/487354

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/487354
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.N. Srivastava, J.
Decided On: Aug 13, 2003
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 15567 of 1988
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 168; [S.B. Sinha & H.S. Bedi, JJ ] Determination of compensation Meaning of income of victim Held, The term income has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question n...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 - Sections 18; Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Pyare Tripathi

Advocate Shah Om Prakash Agarwal, Adv.

Respondent

District Inspector of Schools and anr.

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 - Sections 18; Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981
Cases Referred: Radha Raizada and Ors. v. Committee of Management
Reported In: [2004(101)FLR331]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj ] determination of compensation meaning of income of victim held, the term income has different connotations for different purposes. a court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - secondary education services commission and selection boards act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'act'). section 18 of the act as well as u......for petitioner and learned standing counsel.3. at the relevant time appointment as ad hoc teacher in l.t. grade was made under section 18 of u. p. secondary education services commission and selection boards act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'act'). section 18 of the act as well as u. p. secondary education services commission (removal of difficulties) order, 1981 was part of one integrated scheme for appointing ad hoc teachers urgently required for teaching work in the institution and as such procedures prescribed under removal of difficulties order, 1981 are applicable to the proceedings for appointment/promotion as l.t. grade/c.t. grade on ad hoc basis.4. full bench decision in radha raizada and ors. v. committee of management, vidyawati darbari girls inter college and ors., 1994 (3) uplbec 1551, laid down law on this question.5. under removal of difficulties order, 1981, five years substantive service as c.t. grade was not required for ad hoc promotion to l.t. grade teacher. paragraphs 4 (3) and 6 relating to eligibility of ad hoc are quoted below for ready reference :'4. ad hoc appointment by promotion.--(3) every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the trained graduate (l.t.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the institution in the trained under-graduate (c.t.) grade.6. eligibility for appointment. --every appointment of a teacher under paragraph 4 or 5 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely :(c) the candidate sought to be appointed by promotion under paragraph 4 must have been serving the institution in substantive capacity from before the date of commencement of this order.'6. in the present case, petitioner was appointed as an ad hoc c.t. grade teacher on 18.10.1981 by committee of management which was duly approved by district inspector of schools under the u. p. secondary education services commission (removal of difficulties) order 1981. he was in possession of qualification under u. p. intermediate.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

S. N. Srivastava, J.

1. Dispute in the writ petition relates to appointment of petitioner as an ad hoc L.T. Teacher. Petitioner was appointed as C.T, grade Teacher in S.B. Inter College Tehri Captainganj, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Institution') on 18.10.1981. A post of L.T. grade fell vacant in the year 1987. By resolution dated 6.10.1987 petitioner was promoted as L.T. grade teacher, District Inspector of Schools by order dated 5.4.1988 directed College to submit complete papers. Papers were submitted to District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 5.4.1988 further directed to submit further detail which was again submitted by Manager on 13.4.1988. The District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 12.7.1988 rejected promotion as L.T. grade teacher for not having five years substantive service as C.T. grade.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel.

3. At the relevant time appointment as ad hoc teacher in L.T. grade was made under Section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Section 18 of the Act as well as U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 was part of one integrated scheme for appointing ad hoc teachers urgently required for teaching work in the Institution and as such procedures prescribed under Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 are applicable to the proceedings for appointment/promotion as L.T. grade/C.T. grade on ad hoc basis.

4. Full Bench decision in Radha Raizada and Ors. v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors., 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551, laid down law on this question.

5. Under Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, five years substantive service as C.T. grade was not required for ad hoc promotion to L.T. grade teacher. Paragraphs 4 (3) and 6 relating to eligibility of ad hoc are quoted below for ready reference :

'4. Ad hoc appointment by promotion.--(3) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the trained graduate (L.T.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the institution in the trained under-graduate (C.T.) grade.

6. Eligibility for appointment. --Every appointment of a teacher under Paragraph 4 or 5 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely :(c) The candidate sought to be appointed by promotion under paragraph 4 must have been serving the institution in substantive capacity from before the date of commencement of this order.'

6. In the present case, petitioner was appointed as an ad hoc C.T. grade teacher on 18.10.1981 by Committee of Management which was duly approved by District Inspector of Schools under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981. He was in possession of qualification under U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and was continuously working as C.T. grade teacher on date of his promotion as an ad hoc L.T. grade Teacher as such he shall be deemed to be substantive teacher in C.T. grade appointed by operation of law on date of commencement of U. P. Act No. 19 of 1985. Section 33A was added in the U. P. Act No. 19 of 1985. For ready reference the same is extracted below :

'33A. Regularisation of certain appointments.--(1) Every teacher directly appointed before the commencement of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualification in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall, with effect from the date of such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of such commencement.'

7. I have already referredrelevant paragraph 6 relating toeligibility for ad hocappointment/promotion. Onlyrequirement for ad hoc promotion asL.T. teacher was that a teacher shouldbe working in C.T. grade insubstantive capacity on the date ofpromotion. As the petitioner, who wasdeemed to be substantively appointedC.T. grade teacher under U. P. Act No.19 of 1985, his promotion to the postof L.T. grade teacher was rightly madein accordance with law. The DistrictInspector of Schools acted illegally inrefusing to accord financial approvalon the vacant post for not havingcompleted 5 years substantiveservice. From record, it transpires thatpetitioner was allowed to work underthe interim order granted by thisCourt on 16.8.1988.

8. With the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugnedorder dated 12.7.1988 is quashed.District Inspector of Schoolsconcerned is directed to passappropriate orders including paymentof arrears of salary in accordance withlaw considering the observationsmade above.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2003 Same Parties Ram Pyare Tripathi vs District Inspector of Schools and anr. Same Subject Service Same Judge S.N. Srivastava, J. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Sel...

Service