Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1206 (ALL)

Bhagwat Prasad Sharma v. State of U. P.

2016-04-04

MUKHTAR AHMAD, TARUN AGARWALA

body2016
JUDGMENT We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed the following reliefs- "(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of difference of salary between the post of Lecturer and Principal, to the petitioner from the date of taking charge as officiating Principal till his retirement i.e. from 24.02.1998 to 30.06.2008; (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the consequential post retiral benefits including pension, in the revised pay scale; (c) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the interest @12% per annum with effect from the date of actual payment to the petitioner; (d) any other relief this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (e) Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner through out." 2. We find that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 20133 of 1995 which was disposed of with the direction that if no selection has been held on the post of Principal in the Institution in question and in the event the petitioner is the senior most teacher, he would be allowed to function as officiating Principal till regular selection was made. Subsequently, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 47558 of 1999 contending that pursuant to the order of the Writ Court he started functioning as the Principal on officiating capacity but was not being paid the salary. The Writ Court by an order dated 17.02.2000 disposed of the petition directing the authority concerned to pay the salary to the petitioner from the date he assumed the officiating charge of Principal and further directed the respondents to continue to pay the same in future till a regular candidate joined the post. 3. The petitioner contends that inspite of the aforesaid order of the Court he was not paid the difference of salary. Accordingly, he filed a Contempt Application which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the difference of salary. 4. 3. The petitioner contends that inspite of the aforesaid order of the Court he was not paid the difference of salary. Accordingly, he filed a Contempt Application which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the difference of salary. 4. We are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in as much as the same relief had already been granted to the petitioner by the order dated 17.02.2000, passed in Writ Petition No.42558 of 1999. In so far the second prayer is concerned, we are of the opinion that such relief only flows from the first relief and consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed, with the aforesaid observation.