TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms teacher's employment status, orders compensation & salary payment within 3 months.</h1> <h3>Basic Shiksha Parishad and Ors. Versus. Sugna Devi and Ors</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in favor of Respondent No. 1, determining her status as a teacher employed by the Basic Shiksha ... - Issues:1. Whether Respondent No. 1 was considered a teacher employed by Petitioner No. 1 - Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad.Analysis:The case revolved around the employment status of Respondent No. 1, who claimed to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a school and later faced termination without proper documentation. The Basic Shiksha Parishad contended that she was never their employee due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal rejected her Claim Petition citing delay and lack of proof of her appointment. However, the High Court, relying on documents provided by Respondent No. 1, found in her favor. The High Court highlighted the obligation of the Basic Education Board to explain the non-transfer of employees under the law. It ruled that her service was transferred to the Parishad and she was entitled to salary for the preceding years until superannuation based on revised pay scales.The Supreme Court analyzed whether Respondent No. 1 was in service on the relevant date. It noted that the Tribunal's decision solely based on the absence of an appointment letter was unfounded. In contrast, the High Court's reliance on transfer orders, joining reports, and payment of arrears indicated her valid service. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that her service was transferred by law to the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The Court rejected the contention that she was never in service, emphasizing the lack of termination orders and the continuous accrual of salary, providing her a continuing cause of action. The Court affirmed the High Court's ruling on her entitlement to compensation equivalent to three preceding years' salary before superannuation based on revised pay scales.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the Petition and directed the implementation of the High Court's order within three months. The judgment affirmed Respondent No. 1's status as a teacher employed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, entitling her to compensation and salary for the preceding years before superannuation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
