- (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent -University Deen Dayal Upadhyaya University, Gorakhpur to pay the interest on the arrears of salary of the petitioner and a further direction for payment of damages.
(2.) IT is contended that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Office Assistant. The petitioner was not paid salary for certain period. Aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 35146 of 1992. The Court dismissed the writ petition on 6.1.2010, however, directed that the salary, if any, for the period which the petitioner worked, appropriate orders may be passed. The order dated 6.1.2010 is extracted: "In my opinion the appointment of the petitioner was on a non -sanctioned post therefore legally he will have no right to the post and the matter was referred to the State Government for sanction of the post but the same has been refused. The contention of the petitioner to this effect that the petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk cannot be accepted as it is apparent from the order of appointment that he is being appointed on he post of Public Relation Officer due to non -sanction of post and he will perform the same duties but as regards the payment of salary, he will be paid the pay and scale of a clerk. In view of the aforesaid fact, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. As regards the contention of the petitioner regarding non -payment of salary for the period he has worked, it is open to the petitioner to approach the authority on the basis of the relevant documents to prove that salary during the period, he has worked on any post, has not been paid and if that is so, the respondent -university -authority is directed th consider the same and pass appropriate orders. No order is passed as to costs."
(3.) AGGRIEVED the petitioner preferred special appeal no. 1793 of 2010. The appellate Court directed the respondent -University to calculate the salary for the period petitioner worked and release the salary within a month. Order dated 12.10.2010 is extracted: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is urged by Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned counsel for the University that the claim of the appellant shall be suitably considered, in case the appellant is entitled for salary for the post on which he was appointed by the University. The only issue, therefore, left to be considered is whether the appellant was appointed as an Office Assistant and is entitled for the salary against the post for which he was stated to have been appointed in terms of the letter of the appointment. We find from the records of the writ petition that the appellant was appointed as an Office Assistant and therefore, in our opinion the appellant would be entitled to the said salary to which he was entitled for the period, for which he has worked. The appellant had been appointed by the University and therefore, it would be the University that would be liable to pay the salary. To that extent, the observation of the learned Single Judge that no salary would be admissible to the appellant is set aside. Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned counsel prays that the University shall itself calculate the salary, make the payments to which the appellant may be found entitled within one month. Accordingly, the respondent University is directed to calculate the salary of the appellant on the post of Office Assistant and make the payments to him in accordance with law." The University did not release the salary, the petitioner was constrained to file contempt petition no. 438 of 2011, it is only thereafter, that the amount of arrears of salary of Rs. 30,013/ - was paid on 5.2.2011. It is not disputed, by the petitioner, that interest was not sought in the writ petition. Further the writ petition was dismissed on merits, however, a direction was issued only for the payment of salary for the period the petitioner worked. Since the petitioner had not prayed for interest and it is nowhere pleaded that the petitioner was subjected to harassment, the respondents had deliberately withheld the salary, the ratio of jugdments rendered in Harihar Upadhyay vs. State of U.P., 2012 7 LAWS(All) 29 and Shripati Tripathi (Dead) by LRS vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010 LawSuit(All) 2665 is not applicable in the facts of the present case.;