Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K.Verma, learned Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioner's wife (since deceased) has filed a Writ Petition No.590 of 2016 questioning the order dated 15.12.2015, whereby her alleged appointment was not approved. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereinafter: " यािचका संख्याः 35499/1995 में पािरत मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश िद०- 20.03.2002 के अनुपालन में याची श्रीमती मीता चतुवेर्दी की इन्द्रजीत िशक्षा सदन इण्टर कालेज, जोत, मैनपुरी में प्रवक्ता (नागिरक शास्त्र) के पद पर प्रबन्ध सिमित के प्रस्ताव संख्या- 02 िदनांक 09.01.1992 द्वारा िविहत प्रिक्रया अपना कर की गई िनयुिक्त को वषर् 1991 में शासन के कािमक अनुभाग-02 के टैलेक्स संख्या /20/1/1991- क-2 िदनांक

17.07.1991 तथा राजाज्ञा संख्या/3126/15-7-1(228)/91 िदनांक 30.07.1991 में िनिहत प्रािवधानों के अन्तगर्त प्रबन्ध सिमित के प्रस्ताव संख्या-2 िदनांक 09.01.1992 द्वारा की गई िनयुिक्त को मान्य नहीं िकया जा सकता है। अत एतद् द्वारा याची श्रीमती मीता चतुवेर्दी, प्रवक्ता (नागिरक शास्त्र) के प्रत्यावेदन िदनांक 14.10.1995/ िदनांक रिहत को अस्वीकार करते हुये िनरस्त िकया जाता है। "

3.Aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.5.2025 which was corrected vide order dated 13.8.2025. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereinafter: "21.5.2025

8. While considering the matter, this Court has passed an order on 2 WRIA No. 18904 of 2025

21.01.2020 directing the Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Lucknow to file a personal affidavit. Consequent on the said order, the Secretary has filed his personal affidavit, wherein he has stated that on inquiry, the appointment letter of the petitioner was not available both with the District Inspector of Schools or Committee of Management. He has further stated that as per the alleged appointment letter, the petitioner neither joined nor worked, as per the letter of the respondent no.5-Commitee of Management dated 7.9.2015. In compliance of the orders passed by this Court, the respondents have passed an order on 4.06.2016, the petitioner joined and continued on the said post. Hence, she is not entitled to any salary from the date of initial appointment.

9. In such circumstances, though notices were received by the respondent no.5, the Committee of Management have not filed any counter affidavit with regard to working of the petitioner in the said institution consequent to the appointment. In said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders with regard to payment of salaries from 1992 to 2016. As requested by learned counsel for the petitioner, there shall be a direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to conduct an inquiry after show cause to respondent no.5 and pass appropriate orders with regard to arrears of salaries.

10. When the respondents have passed the order on 4.6.2016, the petitioner's case has to be considered for regularization of service under Section 33C of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and the District Inspector of Schools ought to have pass order for regularization under Section 33C of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and after passing such orders, the respondents are also directed to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

11. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of." XXX

13.8.2025 In Re : Criminal Misc. Correction Application No.24 of 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3 WRIA No. 18904 of 2025

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that in the fourth line of paragraph no.5 and 1st line of paragraph No.10 the date appearing "04.06.2016" may be treated to have been replaced with the date "19.02.2016".

3. The correction application is allowed.

4. The order stands corrected accordingly."

4. Court also takes note of the order dated 19.2.2016 passed during pendency of aforesaid writ petition, whereby an order was passed for payment of salary from the date of order and no order was passed so far as earlier part of salary is concerned on ground of no work no pay.

5. Order dated 19.2.2016 was thereafter challenged by way of an amendment application in the earlier writ petition.

6. As referred above, this Court vide order dated 21.5.2025 as corrected vide order dated 13.8.2025 has directed the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization under Section 33C of U.P. Act No.5 of 1982, though no order was passed in regard to payment of salary from 1992 to 2016, as such no interference was caused in the order dated 19.2.2016.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, Regional Level Committee passed an order dated 22.9.2025. However, since no document was produced by the Committee of Management of concerned College, about working of petitioner from 1992 to 2016, it was considered that his services were not continued, accordingly prayer for her regularization was rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently referred a report dated 15.7.1998 submitted by Principal of the College (referred in Order dated 15.12.2015) that petitioner's wife has worked regularly till said date. However, there is no finding so far as subsequent period is concerned and that order dated 15.12.2015 was not interfered though there was a direction to conduct an inquiry on the issue of arrears of salary i.e. whether petitioner has worked during referred period.

9. At this stage Court takes note of the order dated 21.5.2025 as corrected vide order dated 13.8.2025 in the earlier round of litigation wherein Court 4 WRIA No. 18904 of 2025 has kept open the consideration regarding issue as to whether petitioner's wife has regularly worked from 1992 to 2016, though it was noted that State has come up with a stand that there is no document to prove the same.

10. Aforesaid issue was kept open on the basis that Committee of Management has not filed any counter affidavit.

11. In the impugned order dated 22.9.2025, Manager of Committee of Management has filed a certificate that there are no records in the College that petitioner's wife has worked from the date of her appointment till 2016 regularly.

12. Principal of the Institution is the best authority to produce the documents. However, in the present case nothing was produced before the Regional Level Committee.

13. In the present writ petition also, no document is placed on record that aforesaid certificate was contrary to records, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to take any contrary view to the specific contents of the certificate given by the Principal of concerned College. Accordingly, petitioner has no claim for regularization, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

14. Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. December 16, 2025 SB Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

1. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K.Verma, learned Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioner's wife (since deceased) has filed a Writ Petition No.590 of 2016 questioning the order dated 15.12.2015, whereby her alleged appointment was not approved. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereinafter: " यािचका संख्याः 35499/1995 में पािरत मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश िद०- 20.03.2002 के अनुपालन में याची श्रीमती मीता चतुवेर्दी की इन्द्रजीत िशक्षा सदन इण्टर कालेज, जोत, मैनपुरी में प्रवक्ता (नागिरक शास्त्र) के पद पर प्रबन्ध सिमित के प्रस्ताव संख्या- 02 िदनांक 09.01.1992 द्वारा िविहत प्रिक्रया अपना कर की गई िनयुिक्त को वषर् 1991 में शासन के कािमक अनुभाग-02 के टैलेक्स संख्या /20/1/1991- क-2 िदनांक

17.07.1991 तथा राजाज्ञा संख्या/3126/15-7-1(228)/91 िदनांक 30.07.1991 में िनिहत प्रािवधानों के अन्तगर्त प्रबन्ध सिमित के प्रस्ताव संख्या-2 िदनांक 09.01.1992 द्वारा की गई िनयुिक्त को मान्य नहीं िकया जा सकता है। अत एतद् द्वारा याची श्रीमती मीता चतुवेर्दी, प्रवक्ता (नागिरक शास्त्र) के प्रत्यावेदन िदनांक 14.10.1995/ िदनांक रिहत को अस्वीकार करते हुये िनरस्त िकया जाता है। "

3.Aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.5.2025 which was corrected vide order dated 13.8.2025. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereinafter: "21.5.2025

8. While considering the matter, this Court has passed an order on 2 WRIA No. 18904 of 2025

21.01.2020 directing the Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Lucknow to file a personal affidavit. Consequent on the said order, the Secretary has filed his personal affidavit, wherein he has stated that on inquiry, the appointment letter of the petitioner was not available both with the District Inspector of Schools or Committee of Management. He has further stated that as per the alleged appointment letter, the petitioner neither joined nor worked, as per the letter of the respondent no.5-Commitee of Management dated 7.9.2015. In compliance of the orders passed by this Court, the respondents have passed an order on 4.06.2016, the petitioner joined and continued on the said post. Hence, she is not entitled to any salary from the date of initial appointment.

9. In such circumstances, though notices were received by the respondent no.5, the Committee of Management have not filed any counter affidavit with regard to working of the petitioner in the said institution consequent to the appointment. In said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders with regard to payment of salaries from 1992 to 2016. As requested by learned counsel for the petitioner, there shall be a direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to conduct an inquiry after show cause to respondent no.5 and pass appropriate orders with regard to arrears of salaries.

10. When the respondents have passed the order on 4.6.2016, the petitioner's case has to be considered for regularization of service under Section 33C of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and the District Inspector of Schools ought to have pass order for regularization under Section 33C of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and after passing such orders, the respondents are also directed to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

11. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of." XXX

13.8.2025 In Re : Criminal Misc. Correction Application No.24 of 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3 WRIA No. 18904 of 2025

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that in the fourth line of paragraph no.5 and 1st line of paragraph No.10 the date appearing "04.06.2016" may be treated to have been replaced with the date "19.02.2016".

3. The correction application is allowed.

4. The order stands corrected accordingly."

4. Court also takes note of the order dated 19.2.2016 passed during pendency of aforesaid writ petition, whereby an order was passed for payment of salary from the date of order and no order was passed so far as earlier part of salary is concerned on ground of no work no pay.

5. Order dated 19.2.2016 was thereafter challenged by way of an amendment application in the earlier writ petition.

6. As referred above, this Court vide order dated 21.5.2025 as corrected vide order dated 13.8.2025 has directed the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization under Section 33C of U.P. Act No.5 of 1982, though no order was passed in regard to payment of salary from 1992 to 2016, as such no interference was caused in the order dated 19.2.2016.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, Regional Level Committee passed an order dated 22.9.2025. However, since no document was produced by the Committee of Management of concerned College, about working of petitioner from 1992 to 2016, it was considered that his services were not continued, accordingly prayer for her regularization was rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently referred a report dated 15.7.1998 submitted by Principal of the College (referred in Order dated 15.12.2015) that petitioner's wife has worked regularly till said date. However, there is no finding so far as subsequent period is concerned and that order dated 15.12.2015 was not interfered though there was a direction to conduct an inquiry on the issue of arrears of salary i.e. whether petitioner has worked during referred period.

9. At this stage Court takes note of the order dated 21.5.2025 as corrected vide order dated 13.8.2025 in the earlier round of litigation wherein Court 4 WRIA No. 18904 of 2025 has kept open the consideration regarding issue as to whether petitioner's wife has regularly worked from 1992 to 2016, though it was noted that State has come up with a stand that there is no document to prove the same.

10. Aforesaid issue was kept open on the basis that Committee of Management has not filed any counter affidavit.

11. In the impugned order dated 22.9.2025, Manager of Committee of Management has filed a certificate that there are no records in the College that petitioner's wife has worked from the date of her appointment till 2016 regularly.

12. Principal of the Institution is the best authority to produce the documents. However, in the present case nothing was produced before the Regional Level Committee.

13. In the present writ petition also, no document is placed on record that aforesaid certificate was contrary to records, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to take any contrary view to the specific contents of the certificate given by the Principal of concerned College. Accordingly, petitioner has no claim for regularization, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

14. Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. December 16, 2025 SB Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)