10 April 2018
Supreme Court
Download

APARBAL YADAV Vs THE STATE OF UP

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: C.A. No.-003695-003695 / 2018
Diary number: 34076 / 2017
Advocates: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL Vs


1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 3695/2018

(ARISING FROM SLP (C) NO.28552/2017)

APARBAL YADAV                                      APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                           RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. The appellant is affected to the extent that the Division Bench of the High Court has interfered with the interim arrangement made by the learned Single Judge during the pendency of the writ petition with regard to payment of salary.  Taking note of the long service rendered by the appellant, the learned Single Judge passed the following order, on 31.08.2017:-

“...Stopping salary of a teacher, who is continuously working for last thirty years, only on the basis of doubt is not justified. Accordingly,  the  impugned  order  dated  25th January,  2012  stopping  the  salary  of  the petitioner is stayed.”

3. It  appears,  that  the  Division  Bench,  without

1

2

considering  the  background  of  the  case  and  the reasons which compelled the learned Single Judge to pass  the  order,  directed  the  writ  petition  to  be finally disposed of expeditiously, but modifying the interim  order  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  to  the effect that the status as was prevailing on the date of filing of the writ petition was to be maintained. It is not in dispute that as on the date of filing of the writ petition, the appellant was without salary on account of the impugned orders. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we see no justification at all for the Division Bench to take such a view.  After all, the appellant has been working since 1987 and was drawing salary till the impugned orders were passed in the year 2012. 5. In the above circumstances, the impugned judgment of  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court,  to  the extent it modified the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, is set aside and the appeal is, accordingly, allowed.  The interim arrangement made by the learned Single Judge by order dated 31.08.2017 shall continue to operate till the disposal of the writ  petition.   The  arrears  of  salary  shall  be released within a period of one month from today. 6. The writ petition may be disposed of on its own merits, uninfluenced by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court or of this Court.

2

3

7. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 8. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]  

.......................J.               [NAVIN SINHA]  

NEW DELHI; APRIL 10, 2018.

3