Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with an appeal arising out of a dispute regarding salary entitlement of a teacher appointed in Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Raunija. The appellant, Dharmvir, claimed salary for the period he had worked as a Maths teacher. The only controversy was whether the appellant was entitled to salary for the period during which he had worked. The District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar, had inspected the school on January 25, 1989 and submitted a report dated February 1, 1989, which stated that the appellant had been working since September 3, 1985 as a teacher because the reserved teacher Kanchi Mal Gupta had not joined and one Vijay Kumar had left the post; consequently, the Maths teacher post was vacant and the appellant had been working ever since. The respondent-Management, through counsel Ms. Rachna Gupta, alleged that the Manager and the appellant had colluded and got double payment, and that salary had already been paid by the Management for the period September 1985 to June 1988. The court did not go into the controversy whether the appellant was validly appointed as that was not in issue. The court held that based on the report, the appellant was entitled to payment of salary for the period worked. However, the court directed that the Management, in consultation with the District Inspector of Schools, could verify whether the salary had in fact been paid for that period; if the appellant had already received it, he would not be entitled to salary again for the same period. The court also directed that the appellant's entitlement to continue in service be decided by the appropriate authority according to rules, and that the post be filled in accordance with rules; in case the appellant became over-aged, necessary relaxation would be given and he would be considered along with other candidates. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs. The judgment primarily recognised the principle that an employee who has actually worked is entitled to salary, while allowing verification to prevent double payment.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Salary Entitlement - Actual Work Performed - Not mentioned - The District Inspector of Schools reported that the appellant had worked as a Maths teacher since 3 September 1985 because the reserved teacher had not joined and another teacher had left the post; the Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to payment of salary for the period worked, subject to verification of any double payment. Held that an employee who actually worked is entitled to salary. B) Service Law - Double Payment - Verification of Payment - Not mentioned - The respondent-Management contended that the Manager and the appellant had colluded and that the appellant had already received salary from the Management for September 1985 to June 1988; the court directed that the Management, in consultation with the District Inspector of Schools, could verify whether the salary had in fact been paid, and if so, the appellant would not be entitled to salary for the same period. Held that verification is necessary to prevent double payment. C) Service Law - Continuity in Service - Regularisation and Age Relaxation - Not mentioned - The court directed that the appellant's entitlement to continue in service be decided by the appropriate authority and the post filled according to rules; if the appellant became over-aged, necessary relaxation would be given for consideration along with candidates interviewed. Held that future service rights must be determined by the competent authority under applicable rules.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to salary for the period during which he had worked as a teacher; whether the management's allegation of collusion and double payment required verification; whether the appellant's entitlement to continue in service should be decided by the appropriate authority.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to payment of salary for the period worked, based on the District Inspector of Schools' report. The court directed that the Management, in consultation with the District Inspector of Schools, could verify whether the salary had already been paid to the appellant for the period in question; if so, the appellant would not be entitled to salary again for the same period. The court further directed that the appellant's entitlement to continue in service be decided by the appropriate authority according to rules, and the post be filled in accordance with rules; if the appellant became over-aged, necessary relaxation would be given and he would be considered along with other candidates. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- An employee who has actually worked is entitled to salary for the period of work
- claim of double payment requires verification in consultation with competent authority
- if salary already received
- no further payment for same period
- continuity in service to be decided by appropriate authority per rules
- age relaxation may be given for over-aged candidate.
