High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Prahlad Respondent :- D.I.O.S. Jhansi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Padia,Chandan Shrama,Gulrez Khan,R.G. Padia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.H.Khan,P.R.Gangoli,S.C.,S.K. Srivastava,S.N. Verma Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondent no.1, Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 31.05.2002 of the 1st respondent wherein he has stayed the approval orders.

3. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee and when his services were not approved by the Ist respondent, the petitioner approached this Court and as directed by this Court, the Ist respondent considered and passed the orders on 27.03.2002 accepting the appointment of the petitioner as Class-IV employee and accordingly approved the same. Subsequently, the Ist respondent stayed the approval order on 02.04.2002. The said order was impugned in the writ petition no.16534 of 2002.

4. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner therein, the said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions on 22.04.2002: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The challenge in this writ petition is order dated 2.4.2002 passed by District Inspector of schools (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). It appears that the District inspector of Schools by order dated 27.3.2002 accepted the validity of the petitioner's appointment on Class IV post after a direction given by this Court. The order of District Inspector of Schools gives detailed reasons. It is thereafter by the impugned order, the effect of the earlier decision dated 27.3.2002 has been stayed. It is stated in the impugned order that some facts from the side manager of college were not clarified / cancelled but no details are available in this respect in the impugned order. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the event an opportunity would have been given to the petitioner he would have clarified the entire things and in that event the District Inspector of Schools would not have been passed the impugned order. In any view of the matter, the order of the District Inspector of Schools appears to be interlocutory in nature as after passing the order dated 2.4.2002, he has to take fresh decision in the matter. On the facts and circumstances no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending before this Court Court and, therefore, it appears to be just and proper in the end of justice that this petition may be disposed of by giving a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to take appropriate final decision in the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the respondent No.2 for which date will be fixed and, thereafter the District Inspector of Schools, keeping in mind the reasons and detail given in his earlier order dated 27.3.2002 and on collecting fresh information/material he will take appropriate decision either way. The exercise shall be completed by the District Inspector of Schools, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the decision which will be taken by the District Inspector of Schools will be a speaking one. With these directions, this writ petition stands disposed of." 5. Consequent to the said disposal, the Ist respondent once again passed the orders on 31.05.2002 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. The said order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2002.

6. Subsequently, the Ist respondent has filed counter affidavit on 26.02.2003 with request to vacate the stay order dated 17.07.2002.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has mainly assailed the order dated 31.05.2002 stating that the said order is contrary to the observations made by this Court in Writ-A No.16534 of 2002 on 22.04.2002. The said writ petition was disposed of with specific direction to the respondents more specifically District Inspector of Schools to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent i.e. Nagar Palika Parishad but in the instant matter, no such opportunity was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

8. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the avermments made in paragraph no.13 of the writ petition but in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, no specific denial and no specific date of hearing was given. Therefore, it shows that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by this Court on 22.04.2002. Hence, the said order is contrary to the records and learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to set aside the same.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as the petitioner has pointed out that in view of the interim direction, he has continued in service. Subsequently, he retired and died.

10. Though learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondent no.1 and learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 are not able to provide any material with regard to affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or at least the date of hearing that took place before passing the orders. In the said circumstances, when earlier writ petition was disposed of with specific directions and when the said directions were not complied with while passing the impugned order dated 31.05.2002, there is nothing but violation of the orders and are contrary to records. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.2002 is set aside and by taking subsequent event for consideration, this Court is not inclined to remand the matter to the respondents once again as the petitioner has already retired and now died.

11. It is needless to say that if any dues are pending with regard to the post retiral benefits, the same may be released to the legal heirs of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

12. The present writ petition is consequently disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 (Donadi Ramesh, J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Prahlad Respondent :- D.I.O.S. Jhansi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Padia,Chandan Shrama,Gulrez Khan,R.G. Padia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.H.Khan,P.R.Gangoli,S.C.,S.K. Srivastava,S.N. Verma Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondent no.1, Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 31.05.2002 of the 1st respondent wherein he has stayed the approval orders.

3. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee and when his services were not approved by the Ist respondent, the petitioner approached this Court and as directed by this Court, the Ist respondent considered and passed the orders on 27.03.2002 accepting the appointment of the petitioner as Class-IV employee and accordingly approved the same. Subsequently, the Ist respondent stayed the approval order on 02.04.2002. The said order was impugned in the writ petition no.16534 of 2002.

4. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner therein, the said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions on 22.04.2002: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The challenge in this writ petition is order dated 2.4.2002 passed by District Inspector of schools (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). It appears that the District inspector of Schools by order dated 27.3.2002 accepted the validity of the petitioner's appointment on Class IV post after a direction given by this Court. The order of District Inspector of Schools gives detailed reasons. It is thereafter by the impugned order, the effect of the earlier decision dated 27.3.2002 has been stayed. It is stated in the impugned order that some facts from the side manager of college were not clarified / cancelled but no details are available in this respect in the impugned order. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the event an opportunity would have been given to the petitioner he would have clarified the entire things and in that event the District Inspector of Schools would not have been passed the impugned order. In any view of the matter, the order of the District Inspector of Schools appears to be interlocutory in nature as after passing the order dated 2.4.2002, he has to take fresh decision in the matter. On the facts and circumstances no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending before this Court Court and, therefore, it appears to be just and proper in the end of justice that this petition may be disposed of by giving a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to take appropriate final decision in the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the respondent No.2 for which date will be fixed and, thereafter the District Inspector of Schools, keeping in mind the reasons and detail given in his earlier order dated 27.3.2002 and on collecting fresh information/material he will take appropriate decision either way. The exercise shall be completed by the District Inspector of Schools, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the decision which will be taken by the District Inspector of Schools will be a speaking one. With these directions, this writ petition stands disposed of." 5. Consequent to the said disposal, the Ist respondent once again passed the orders on 31.05.2002 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. The said order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2002.

6. Subsequently, the Ist respondent has filed counter affidavit on 26.02.2003 with request to vacate the stay order dated 17.07.2002.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has mainly assailed the order dated 31.05.2002 stating that the said order is contrary to the observations made by this Court in Writ-A No.16534 of 2002 on 22.04.2002. The said writ petition was disposed of with specific direction to the respondents more specifically District Inspector of Schools to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent i.e. Nagar Palika Parishad but in the instant matter, no such opportunity was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

8. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the avermments made in paragraph no.13 of the writ petition but in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, no specific denial and no specific date of hearing was given. Therefore, it shows that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by this Court on 22.04.2002. Hence, the said order is contrary to the records and learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to set aside the same.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as the petitioner has pointed out that in view of the interim direction, he has continued in service. Subsequently, he retired and died.

10. Though learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondent no.1 and learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 are not able to provide any material with regard to affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or at least the date of hearing that took place before passing the orders. In the said circumstances, when earlier writ petition was disposed of with specific directions and when the said directions were not complied with while passing the impugned order dated 31.05.2002, there is nothing but violation of the orders and are contrary to records. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.2002 is set aside and by taking subsequent event for consideration, this Court is not inclined to remand the matter to the respondents once again as the petitioner has already retired and now died.

11. It is needless to say that if any dues are pending with regard to the post retiral benefits, the same may be released to the legal heirs of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

12. The present writ petition is consequently disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 (Donadi Ramesh, J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad