High Court · 2025

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Principal of Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya Inter College, Rath, Hamirpur on 21.6.1989 by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board and from the date of the appointment, the petitioner has continued and discharging his duties in the fourth respondent's institution as Principal.

5. Surprisingly, respondent no.4-Committee of Management has passed a resolution terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Principal vide resolution dated 31.08.2001. The said resolution was disapproved by the Commission on 10.03.2005. Aggrieved by the said disapproval, the fourth respondent has filed Writ A No. 36420 of 2005. Taking the facts into consideration, this Court has passed the interim order on 4.5.2005, which reads as below: "Till the next date of listing, status quo in the office of principal Sri Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya Inter College, Rath, District Hamirpur as it exists today be maintained."

6. As the petitioner has continued as Principal in view of disapproval order dated 10.03.2005 and by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 4.5.2005, the petitioner has continued to discharge his duties as Principal of the fourth respondent's institution.

7. Subsequently, respondent no.4-Commitee of Management, has once again, suspended the services of the petitioner as Principal and the said orders were also not approved by the competent authority and subsequently, the District Inspector of Schools vide his communication dated 9.6.2005 has confirmed that the petitioner is continuing as Principal of the fourth respondent's institution. Questioning the said proceedings, the management has approached this Court by way of Writ A No. 50088 of 2005, in which this Court has held that the orders dated 27.5.2005 and

9.7.2005 passed by the District Inspector of Schools shall be kept in abeyance and whoever had been functioning as Principal in the institution in question shall continue to function. Accordingly, vide resolution dated 25.4.2009, the management has consented the appointment of the petitioner as Principal in the fourth respondent's institution. Consequently, on 25.05.2012, the Deputy Director of Education vide his letter to the District Inspector of Schools has recommended for release of salary of the petitioner and in turn, after receipt of the entire proposals, the Director of Education (Secondary) has written a letter to the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur on 20.06.2012, which reads as under: "पपषक शशकक शनदपशक (मक०) उ०प०. लखनऊ। सपवक मम, जजलक शवदकलय शनररकक हमररपपर। पतकतकक सक०-1 शशशवर/मक०-3/157/3199/12-13 शदनकतक २० जजन, 2012 शर आर०एस० शतपकठर, शवषयक- वपतन भपगतकन कप सतबतध मम। पधकनकचकयर जर०आर०वर० इणटर ककलपज, हमररपपर कप पधकनकचकयर पद कप महहदय, रक शवषयक शशशवर ककयकरलय कप पत सतखयक-सक०-1 शशशवर/मक०-3/157/2014/12-13 कक सतदभर गहण करम, शदनकतक 25 जर०आर०वर० इणटर हमररपपर कप पधकनकचकयर पद कप वपतन भपगतकन कप सतबतध मम सससशत सपष करतप हहए पकरण कक पजणर कक पयक उपयप मई, 2012 ककलपज, आखयक पपशषत करनप कप शनदरश शदयप गयप हह। अपपशकत सजचनक शशशवर ककयकरलय मम अदकवजध अपकप हह। जजसकप दकरक शर आर०एस० शतपकठर, पधकनकचकयर- पकरण मम लगकतकर इस ककयकरलय कह यह अवगत करकयक जक रहक हह शक शर आर०एस० शतपकठर, पधकनकचकयर जर०आर०वर० इणटर ककलपज, सप वपतन भपगतकन आपकप दकरक नहह शकयक जक मम यह सपष आदपश शदयप गयप हह शक शर शतपकठर कह मक० नयकयकलय, रहक हह। आपकप आदपश शदनकतक 29.6.2011 इलकहकबकद कप आदपशकनपसकर वपतन आशद पजवरवतत दपय हहगक। शर शतपकठर कप पधकनकचकयर पद कप वपतन भपगतकन कप सतबतध मम अपनप आदपश शदनकतक 29.6.2011 कक अनपपकलन शनयमकनपसकर सपशनसशचत करनप कक ककयरवकहर करम तसक कक त ककयरवकहर कक सजचनक इस ककयकरलय कह उपलबध करकनप कक कष करम। हमररपपर कह मकह जपलकई 2011 भवदरय बकसपदपव यकदव) ( शशकक शनदपशक मकधयशमक उ०प०, लखनऊ।"

8. Despite the direction given by the second respondent, the authorities have not released salary to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has attained superannuation on 31.05.2016.

9. After notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. Though, there are no much denial with regard to the facts narrated in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition. So far as payment of salary to the petitioner is concerned, a letter has been sent to the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow on 2.6.2012 as the petitioner is absent from duty, he is not entitled for salary. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record certain facts to the notice of Court, in fact, the second respondent's in his letter dated 4.4.2016 has categorically directed the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur that if any interim order against the petitioner is operating, the Committee of Management is entitled for release of salary to the petitioner and his letter dated 13.5.2016 again reiterated the same. This issue was also brought to the notice of the Uttar Pradesh Financial and Administrative Delays Committee. The same was also considered and passed an order on 26.4.2017.

10. Despite of this, the only hurdle for release of salary is that pendency of two writ petitions filed by the management being Writ A Nos. 36420 of 2005 and 50088 of 2005, but the said writ petitions were also dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2018.

11. I have considered the materials placed along with the writ petition and also the supplementary affidavit. As the facts are not in dispute and in fact, subsequently after the retirement of the petitioner, the Director of Education (Secondary) as well as Uttar Pradesh Financial and Administrative Delays Committee have also considered the case of the petitioner for entitlement. Though, there was an interim order in Writ A No. 36420 of 2005 directing to maintain status quo with regard to post of Principal, but the said issue was also clarified by the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur in his letter dated 9.6.2005.

12. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has continued as Principal and subsequently, in 2009, the management has also confirmed the entitlement as Principal and consequent to that as recommended by the Director in the proceedings dated

20.06.2012, the only hindrance for release of salary and other retiral benefits to the petitioner would be the pendency of the writ petitions filed by the management.

13. Once, the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2018, the respondents ought to have release the salary for which the petitioner is entitled. If not released, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release arrears of salary to the petitioner, within a period of two months. It is needless to say once the salary to the petitioner is released, the respondents may also calculate the entire retiral benefits and also pay the same to the petitioner, within a further period of one month.

14. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Principal of Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya Inter College, Rath, Hamirpur on 21.6.1989 by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board and from the date of the appointment, the petitioner has continued and discharging his duties in the fourth respondent's institution as Principal.

5. Surprisingly, respondent no.4-Committee of Management has passed a resolution terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Principal vide resolution dated 31.08.2001. The said resolution was disapproved by the Commission on 10.03.2005. Aggrieved by the said disapproval, the fourth respondent has filed Writ A No. 36420 of 2005. Taking the facts into consideration, this Court has passed the interim order on 4.5.2005, which reads as below: "Till the next date of listing, status quo in the office of principal Sri Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya Inter College, Rath, District Hamirpur as it exists today be maintained."

6. As the petitioner has continued as Principal in view of disapproval order dated 10.03.2005 and by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 4.5.2005, the petitioner has continued to discharge his duties as Principal of the fourth respondent's institution.

7. Subsequently, respondent no.4-Commitee of Management, has once again, suspended the services of the petitioner as Principal and the said orders were also not approved by the competent authority and subsequently, the District Inspector of Schools vide his communication dated 9.6.2005 has confirmed that the petitioner is continuing as Principal of the fourth respondent's institution. Questioning the said proceedings, the management has approached this Court by way of Writ A No. 50088 of 2005, in which this Court has held that the orders dated 27.5.2005 and

9.7.2005 passed by the District Inspector of Schools shall be kept in abeyance and whoever had been functioning as Principal in the institution in question shall continue to function. Accordingly, vide resolution dated 25.4.2009, the management has consented the appointment of the petitioner as Principal in the fourth respondent's institution. Consequently, on 25.05.2012, the Deputy Director of Education vide his letter to the District Inspector of Schools has recommended for release of salary of the petitioner and in turn, after receipt of the entire proposals, the Director of Education (Secondary) has written a letter to the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur on 20.06.2012, which reads as under: "पपषक शशकक शनदपशक (मक०) उ०प०. लखनऊ। सपवक मम, जजलक शवदकलय शनररकक हमररपपर। पतकतकक सक०-1 शशशवर/मक०-3/157/3199/12-13 शदनकतक २० जजन, 2012 शर आर०एस० शतपकठर, शवषयक- वपतन भपगतकन कप सतबतध मम। पधकनकचकयर जर०आर०वर० इणटर ककलपज, हमररपपर कप पधकनकचकयर पद कप महहदय, रक शवषयक शशशवर ककयकरलय कप पत सतखयक-सक०-1 शशशवर/मक०-3/157/2014/12-13 कक सतदभर गहण करम, शदनकतक 25 जर०आर०वर० इणटर हमररपपर कप पधकनकचकयर पद कप वपतन भपगतकन कप सतबतध मम सससशत सपष करतप हहए पकरण कक पजणर कक पयक उपयप मई, 2012 ककलपज, आखयक पपशषत करनप कप शनदरश शदयप गयप हह। अपपशकत सजचनक शशशवर ककयकरलय मम अदकवजध अपकप हह। जजसकप दकरक शर आर०एस० शतपकठर, पधकनकचकयर- पकरण मम लगकतकर इस ककयकरलय कह यह अवगत करकयक जक रहक हह शक शर आर०एस० शतपकठर, पधकनकचकयर जर०आर०वर० इणटर ककलपज, सप वपतन भपगतकन आपकप दकरक नहह शकयक जक मम यह सपष आदपश शदयप गयप हह शक शर शतपकठर कह मक० नयकयकलय, रहक हह। आपकप आदपश शदनकतक 29.6.2011 इलकहकबकद कप आदपशकनपसकर वपतन आशद पजवरवतत दपय हहगक। शर शतपकठर कप पधकनकचकयर पद कप वपतन भपगतकन कप सतबतध मम अपनप आदपश शदनकतक 29.6.2011 कक अनपपकलन शनयमकनपसकर सपशनसशचत करनप कक ककयरवकहर करम तसक कक त ककयरवकहर कक सजचनक इस ककयकरलय कह उपलबध करकनप कक कष करम। हमररपपर कह मकह जपलकई 2011 भवदरय बकसपदपव यकदव) ( शशकक शनदपशक मकधयशमक उ०प०, लखनऊ।"

8. Despite the direction given by the second respondent, the authorities have not released salary to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has attained superannuation on 31.05.2016.

9. After notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. Though, there are no much denial with regard to the facts narrated in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition. So far as payment of salary to the petitioner is concerned, a letter has been sent to the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow on 2.6.2012 as the petitioner is absent from duty, he is not entitled for salary. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record certain facts to the notice of Court, in fact, the second respondent's in his letter dated 4.4.2016 has categorically directed the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur that if any interim order against the petitioner is operating, the Committee of Management is entitled for release of salary to the petitioner and his letter dated 13.5.2016 again reiterated the same. This issue was also brought to the notice of the Uttar Pradesh Financial and Administrative Delays Committee. The same was also considered and passed an order on 26.4.2017.

10. Despite of this, the only hurdle for release of salary is that pendency of two writ petitions filed by the management being Writ A Nos. 36420 of 2005 and 50088 of 2005, but the said writ petitions were also dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2018.

11. I have considered the materials placed along with the writ petition and also the supplementary affidavit. As the facts are not in dispute and in fact, subsequently after the retirement of the petitioner, the Director of Education (Secondary) as well as Uttar Pradesh Financial and Administrative Delays Committee have also considered the case of the petitioner for entitlement. Though, there was an interim order in Writ A No. 36420 of 2005 directing to maintain status quo with regard to post of Principal, but the said issue was also clarified by the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur in his letter dated 9.6.2005.

12. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has continued as Principal and subsequently, in 2009, the management has also confirmed the entitlement as Principal and consequent to that as recommended by the Director in the proceedings dated

20.06.2012, the only hindrance for release of salary and other retiral benefits to the petitioner would be the pendency of the writ petitions filed by the management.

13. Once, the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2018, the respondents ought to have release the salary for which the petitioner is entitled. If not released, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release arrears of salary to the petitioner, within a period of two months. It is needless to say once the salary to the petitioner is released, the respondents may also calculate the entire retiral benefits and also pay the same to the petitioner, within a further period of one month.

14. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad