Rajya Sabha Passes the Boilers Bill, 2024  ||  NCLAT: Authority Can’t Pass Adverse Remarks against RP Performing Duties as Per CoC’s Instruction  ||  Tel. HC: Teacher Eligibility Test Guidelines Framed to Ensure that Competent Persons are Recruited  ||  Ker. HC: Loss in Derivative Business Would be a Business Loss for Purposes of Section 72 of IT Act  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Suo-Motu Cognizance Taken Over Lack of Public Washrooms  ||  Gau. HC: Thorough Enquiry to be Conducted before Declaring a Monument as Ancient  ||  SC: Buttondar Knife to be Prohibited Only if Used for Manufacture, Sale or Possession for Sale or Tes  ||  Del. HC: Collection of Funds to Commit Offence in Future Not Money Laundering Under PMLA  ||  Rajya Sabha Passes Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Amendment Bill, 2024  ||  Lok Sabha passes Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024    

Dulu Deka Vs. State of Assam and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (22 Aug 2023)

Once the appointment has been declared illegal and void ab initio, a person cannot legally continue in service

MANU/SC/0913/2023

Service

The writ petition was filed by the Appellant in the High Court in the year 2008 praying for release of her salary from 12th March, 2001 onwards. It was claimed that, she was rendering service as an Assistant Teacher in Bengabari M.E. School and had not been paid any salary. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. The order was upheld in an intra-court appeal.

It is nowhere stated in the Appellant's appointment letter that the said appointment was in pursuance of any advertisement issued or the candidates had undergone any selection process for the same. In fact, all the appointments made by the District Elementary Education Officer, Darrang, Mangaldoi, from 08.03.2001 to 31.03.2002 were declared to be illegal and void ab initio by the Director of Elementary Education vide order. The appointment of the Appellant was also included therein.

Once the appointment of the Appellant had been declared illegal and void ab initio, and was cancelled by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam vide order dated 18th October, 2001, the Appellant could not legally continue in service thereafter, unless that cancellation order was set aside. It has been noticed by the High Court that the order dated 18th October, 2001 was never challenged by the Appellant. Thus, the Appellant had no legal right to continue in service, especially when there is no order or letter placed on record by the Appellant that she was allowed to continue beyond 31st March, 2002. No claim for payment of salary could be made for any period. Even otherwise, it is difficult to believe that a person has been working for two decades without any salary. Even the writ petition was filed by her in the High Court in the year 2008, claiming salary from 12th March, 2001 onwards i.e., seven years later. There is no reason to differ with concurrent findings of facts recorded by the High Court. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : APPOINTMENT   SALARY   PAYMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved