Krishna Kumar Mishra v. Counsel for

6. Again the Joint Director of Education after hearing the parties allowed the appeal vide order dated 22.03.2002. Aggrieved by the same the fourth- respondent has once again approached this Court in Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002, in that this Court has granted interim directions on 25.04.2002, which reads as follows:- "Sri Jain who appears on behalf of the respondent No.3 submits that inspite of the earlier order passed by this court petitioner has not been paid full salary irrespective of the fact that respondent No.3 was not permitted to work. On account of the inaction on the part of the petitioner Joint Director of Education Jhansi Region Jhansi has also passed order on 21.03.2002 copy of which has been placed before this court during the course of the arguments by which it was directed that the management will ensure payment of full salary. In view of the aforesaid submission as has come from both sides and the material as has been placed on the record it appears to be just and proper to stay operation of the order dated 21.03.2002 passed by the Joint Director of Education (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) subject to the condition that petitioner will ensure payment of full salary to the respondent No.3 as and when it falls due and petitioners will also ensure compliance of the order of Joint Director of Education dated 31.03.2002 as referred above but it will be open for the petitioners to take work from the respondent No.3 or not till next date of listing."

7. In compliance to the above said orders the respondents have paid full salary to the petitioner and while pending the writ petition the petitioner has retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016.

8. After retirement, based on the representation made by the petitioner the respondents have released/ sanctioned part payment of the pension and post retirement benefits. 3 WRIA No. 16005 of 2017

9. Subsequently, the writ petition No.16886 of 2002 filed by the fourth- respondent has got dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2018 which reads as follows:- "1. Notice was issued to petitioners to engage another counsel vide Court's order dated 03.08.2018 and it was sent by registered post on 10.08.2018. Perused the office report dated 12.09.2018. Service is deemed sufficient. Called in revise. None appeared on behalf of petitioners.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have sought the following relief: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned order dated 22.3.2002 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure No.14 to the writ petition). (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner committee of management."

3. I myself have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioners are not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.

4. Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or that petitioners have lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits.

5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

6. Sri Rahul Jain, Advocate is present for respondents."

10. In view of the interim protection granted by this Court in earlier two writ petitions filed by fourth-respondent i.e. Writ Petition No.19699 of 1996 interim directions dated 24.02.1997 and also in Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002 interim order dated 25.04.2002, the petitioner has continued and full salary has been paid and after attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner has retired.

11. In view of the said circumstances, as per the interim directions granted by this Court, the petitioner is entitled for the arrears of salary and also full balance of post retirement benefits. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested representation made by the petitioner with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation with all calculations and with a direction to release the same forthwith. the respondents to consider to direct 4 WRIA No. 16005 of 2017

12. In reply to the same, learned counsel appearing on behalf of fourth- respondent has contended that fourth-respondent has filed two writ petitions and the fact remains that last Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002 was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution and in fact the fourth-respondent has filed recall application immediately which is pending consideration before this Court. In view of the said circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits without deciding the Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002 by this Court, on merits.

13. If the present writ petition is allowed and the benefits were granted to the petitioner the writ petition No.16886 of 2002 filed by the fourth-respondent will become infructuous. Hence, if any benefits are being paid to the petitioner those are subject to final disposal of the Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002, on merits.

14. Considering the submissions made by both counsel, the fact remains that both the writ petitions filed by the fourth-respondent, there is a protection granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the respondents have paid the salaries to the petitioner herein and he got retired. Once he has continued and retired, the respondents have also released the part pensionary benefits. The respondents ought not to have withhold the arrears of salary as well as the part retirement benefits. Hence, conserving the interim orders passed in Writ Petition No.19699 of 1996 and also interim directions issued in Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002, the present writ petition is disposed of after giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation/ claim petition with all calculations which are due to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. On filing such representation/ claim petition the respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider and release the same within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation/ claim petition.

15. As contended by learned counsel for the fourth-respondent, the above said payments are subject to result of the final outcome of Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002. September 8, 2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

6. Again the Joint Director of Education after hearing the parties allowed the appeal vide order dated 22.03.2002. Aggrieved by the same the fourth- respondent has once again approached this Court in Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002, in that this Court has granted interim directions on 25.04.2002, which reads as follows:- "Sri Jain who appears on behalf of the respondent No.3 submits that inspite of the earlier order passed by this court petitioner has not been paid full salary irrespective of the fact that respondent No.3 was not permitted to work. On account of the inaction on the part of the petitioner Joint Director of Education Jhansi Region Jhansi has also passed order on 21.03.2002 copy of which has been placed before this court during the course of the arguments by which it was directed that the management will ensure payment of full salary. In view of the aforesaid submission as has come from both sides and the material as has been placed on the record it appears to be just and proper to stay operation of the order dated 21.03.2002 passed by the Joint Director of Education (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) subject to the condition that petitioner will ensure payment of full salary to the respondent No.3 as and when it falls due and petitioners will also ensure compliance of the order of Joint Director of Education dated 31.03.2002 as referred above but it will be open for the petitioners to take work from the respondent No.3 or not till next date of listing."

7. In compliance to the above said orders the respondents have paid full salary to the petitioner and while pending the writ petition the petitioner has retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016.

8. After retirement, based on the representation made by the petitioner the respondents have released/ sanctioned part payment of the pension and post retirement benefits. 3 WRIA No. 16005 of 2017

9. Subsequently, the writ petition No.16886 of 2002 filed by the fourth- respondent has got dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2018 which reads as follows:- "1. Notice was issued to petitioners to engage another counsel vide Court's order dated 03.08.2018 and it was sent by registered post on 10.08.2018. Perused the office report dated 12.09.2018. Service is deemed sufficient. Called in revise. None appeared on behalf of petitioners.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have sought the following relief: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned order dated 22.3.2002 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure No.14 to the writ petition). (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner committee of management."

3. I myself have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioners are not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.

4. Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or that petitioners have lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits.

5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

6. Sri Rahul Jain, Advocate is present for respondents."

10. In view of the interim protection granted by this Court in earlier two writ petitions filed by fourth-respondent i.e. Writ Petition No.19699 of 1996 interim directions dated 24.02.1997 and also in Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002 interim order dated 25.04.2002, the petitioner has continued and full salary has been paid and after attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner has retired.

11. In view of the said circumstances, as per the interim directions granted by this Court, the petitioner is entitled for the arrears of salary and also full balance of post retirement benefits. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested representation made by the petitioner with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation with all calculations and with a direction to release the same forthwith. the respondents to consider to direct 4 WRIA No. 16005 of 2017

12. In reply to the same, learned counsel appearing on behalf of fourth- respondent has contended that fourth-respondent has filed two writ petitions and the fact remains that last Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002 was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution and in fact the fourth-respondent has filed recall application immediately which is pending consideration before this Court. In view of the said circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits without deciding the Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002 by this Court, on merits.

13. If the present writ petition is allowed and the benefits were granted to the petitioner the writ petition No.16886 of 2002 filed by the fourth-respondent will become infructuous. Hence, if any benefits are being paid to the petitioner those are subject to final disposal of the Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002, on merits.

14. Considering the submissions made by both counsel, the fact remains that both the writ petitions filed by the fourth-respondent, there is a protection granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the respondents have paid the salaries to the petitioner herein and he got retired. Once he has continued and retired, the respondents have also released the part pensionary benefits. The respondents ought not to have withhold the arrears of salary as well as the part retirement benefits. Hence, conserving the interim orders passed in Writ Petition No.19699 of 1996 and also interim directions issued in Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002, the present writ petition is disposed of after giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation/ claim petition with all calculations which are due to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. On filing such representation/ claim petition the respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider and release the same within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation/ claim petition.

15. As contended by learned counsel for the fourth-respondent, the above said payments are subject to result of the final outcome of Writ Petition No.16886 of 2002. September 8, 2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad