Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1605 (ALL)

YOGENDRA RAI v. STATE OF U P

2009-04-21

C.K.PRASAD, DILIP GUPTA

body2009
( 1 ) WRIT petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03. 03. 2009 passed by a learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 10270 of 2009, has preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. ( 2 ) WRIT petitioner-appellant happens to be the Headmaster of Janta Janardan Poorv Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dharmapur in district Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the school ). Respondent no. 5 was elected as Manager of the Committee, which was challenged by respondent no. 4, who happens to be the brother of writ petitioner-appellant. ( 3 ) DESPITE order by the Management and the Basic Education Officer, writ petitioner-appellant refused to forward the salary bills of the employees of the School. Management of the School, therefore, wrote to the Basic Education Officer to authorize a senior teacher to present the bill, which is said to have been accepted and by order dated 07. 02. 2009, Shri Jai Nath Tiwari was authorized to forward the pay bill. ( 4 ) WRIT petitioner-appellant challenged the aforesaid order in the writ petition, which has given rise to the impugned order. The learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, observed as follows:- ". . . Thus, finding that the salary was not being disbursed to the teachers and other employees of the institution, the present impugned order on the basis of the resolution of Committee of Management has been passed whereby this power of forwarding the salary bill has been taken away from the petitioner. " ( 5 ) SHRI K. K. Rajbhar, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the appellant being the Headmaster of the School, it is his right to forward the pay bill and, according to him, the salary bill was already submitted and received by the authority. ( 6 ) FROM the order impugned in the writ petition, it is evident that the appellant did not forward the pay bill despite the request of the Management and in the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Basic Education Officer did not err in authorizing another teacher to forward the pay bill. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. .