S.K.Mukerjee, J. - (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is averred that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Tax Department, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad by the Administrator on 2nd of July, 1986 on daily wages. He worked upto 31 -12 -1986 and was also paid his salary. It appears that the Tax Superintendent recommended his case, but the Administrator did not pass any further appointment order. The case of the petitioner is that from 1 -1 -1987 to 16 -8 -1988 under the instructions of the Tax Superintendent he worked in the department, but was not paid his salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also informed that the petitioner has again been appointed on 16 -8 -1988 by the Administrator. The petitioner is aggrieved because the salary from 1 -1 -1987 to 16 -8 -1988 has not been paid to him. In fact, he filed two representations dated 11 -12 -1987 and 19 -12 -1987, copies whereof are Annexures '4' and '5' to the writ petition. A counter -affidavit has. been filed. In paragraph 6 of the counter -affidavit, it has been averred that only this much is admitted that even the Tax Superintendent recommended to the Administrator for further continuance of the services of the petitioner on daily wages and the same recommendation was sent to the Administrator, but the Administrator did not send any approval about the said proposal. It is also averred in the counter -affidavit that the action taken by the Tax -Superintendent in taking work from the petitioner, without the order of the Administrator, who was the appointing authority was illegal, unauthorised and without jurisdiction. It is also stated that the Tax Superintendent had no power or jurisdiction to appoint, continue or take any work from any person without prior approval/order/sanction of the Administrator, who was the appointing authority.
(2.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the petitioner might have worked during the period 1 -1 -1987 to 16 -6 -1988, but he has not worked under any authority of law. In fact, the action of the Tax Superintendent certainly cannot bind of the Administrator in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner it now working in the department. In paragraph 10 of the counter -affidavit, it has been averred that the petitioner has made, in fact, no representations.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, I am constrained to observe that this is a peculiar case where the petitioner was permitted to work, without any order of the Administrator, by the Tax Superintendent and he has not been paid his salary for that period on the ground that there was no order of the Administrator appointing him on the post for which he has been asking for the salary. No -doubt, this writ petition has no merit in view of the materials on record. The writ petition raises so many disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into. It shall be, however, open to the petitioner now to make a representation to the Administrator narrating therein full facts and claiming salary for the period beginning from 1 -1 -1987 to 16 -8 -1988 in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. It shall be opens for the Administrator also to consider the matter and pass any order that he feels just and proper. With the above observations, this writ petition is finally disposed of There shall be no order as to costs.;