R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THIS special has been preferred from the order dated 23 -9 -1991, passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28678 of 1991, filed by Manu Dutt Sharma, Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed the aforementioned writ petition for a direction or order in the nature of mandamus from this Court directing the Respondents to pay salary to him from March, 1991 up to date along with interest at the current market rate and further to pay salary to him in future and continue to pay the same till he attained the age of superannuation. The claim of Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition was that he is entitled to continue as lecturer in Economics up to the age of 60 years and as his date of birth is 16 -7 -1932, he shall retire from service on 15 -7 -1992 under the provisions applicable to him and as per Government Orders and since he is entitled to continue up to the end of the academic session, he is entitled to continue on his post up to 30 -6 -1993.
(2.) IT appears that there was some controversy regarding the age of superannuation applicable in the case of Respondent No. 1. The Appellant committee of management Jain Vidya Mandir Inter College Nahtaur, District Bijnor (hereinafter referred to as the Management) which was Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, by its order dated 8 -4 -1991 retired Respondent No. 1 on attaining the age of 58 years which was questioned by him by filing a writ petition in this Court, which was disposed of by learned Single Judge on 9 -7 -1991 and the Respondent No. 1 was asked to approach the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor for the reliefs sought against the action of the Management. The District Inspector of Schools was directed to decide the representation of the Respondent No. 1 within a period of six weeks. The question relating to the payment of salary was also to be decided along with the representation. The order of the learned Single Judge has been filed as Annexure I to the writ petition. The District Inspector of Schools by order dated 31 -7 -1991 accepted the grievance of the Respondent and found him entitled to remain in service up to the age of 60 years, being the age of superannuation applicable to him. The Respondent No. 1 was also found entitled for the salary and other payments. Respondent No. 1 relied on the order of the District Inspector of Schools in the writ petition and the main allegation was that the Management is flouting the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools and is creating obstacles in payment of salary. The learned Single Judge after hearing Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel disposed of the writ petition with the finding that the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years and by virtue of the Government Order he is further entitled to continue during whole of the academic session. The learned Single Judge further observed that steps shall be taken to pay the salary to the Respondent No. 1 as early as possible after completing legal formalities required in respect thereof. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been challenged in this Special Appeal. The main contention of Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the committee of management which is Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, was a necessary party and the writ petition could not be legally decided without affording an opportunity of hearing. The findings and the observations recorded are highly prejudicial and cannot be sustained being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, contended that the payment of salary is the responsibility of the State of U.P. under the Payment of Salaries Act and hence it was not legally necessary to hear the committee of management before passing the order impugned in the present appeal. It was further contended by the Learned Counsel that the order passed on 31 -7 -1991 by the District Inspector of Schools has not been challenged by the Appellant committee of management and it has become final. The order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of the order passed by this Court and under this order the Respondent No. 1 is legally entitled to continue on the post up to 30 -6 -1993 and consequently he is also entitled to get his salary along with other benefit available to him under law.;