Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Merajul Uloom, Faizabad Thru.manager Raj Mohd and Anr v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Minority Welfare and Waqf Govt. of

2. Heard Shri Mohit Jauhari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Special Appeal No. 35 of 2022 is delayed.

4. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay which is two days, is sufficient. 2 SPLA No. 495 of 2022

5. The application for condonation of delay bearing No. 1 of 2022 filed in Special Appeal Defective No. 35 of 2022 is allowed and the delay is condoned.

6. We now proceed to hear both the appeals on merits.

7. We have taken Special Appeal No. 495 of 2022 as leading special appeal.

8. This is an appeal by the State challenging judgment and order dated

07.04.2022 passed by the writ Court in Writ - A No. 7844 of 2008 by which interest @ 6% on delayed payment of salary/ arrears of salary has been awarded.

9. The only contention raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that in the earlier round of litigation i.e Writ Petition No. 10324 (S/S) of 2019 filed by the respondent-petitioner all these issues have been settled and it was decided that the respondent/petitioner shall not raise any other claim in respect of the writ petitions referred in the order dated 6/13.03.2019. Accordingly, a direction was issued in the said writ petition on 15.04.2019 for paying the post retiral dues.

10. Prior to filing of the aforesaid writ petition which was decided on

15.04.2019 the respondent- petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition No. 1051 (S/S) of 1995 pertaining to payment of salary which was not being paid; Writ Petition No. 2755 (S/S) of 2000 which raised a challenge to her oral termination; Writ Petition No. 2419 (S/S) of 2006 which raised a challenge to her written termination from service; Writ Petition No. 9972 (S/S) of 2006 which pertained to a challenge raised by the respondent- petitioner to an appointment made in her place; Writ Petition No. 2618 (S/S) of 2013 which raised a challenge to her suspension, therefore, in 3 SPLA No. 495 of 2022 view of the aforesaid statement in the judgment dated 15.04.2019 at best no claim could be raised with respect to aforesaid writ petitions.

11. In this regard learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner says that in Writ Petition No. 1051 (S/S) of 1995 no relief was prayed regarding interest on delayed payment of salary. Only the salary which was not being paid, was sought. The salary was paid in 2007 after passing of several interim orders and initiation of contempt proceedings, but, even that was not paid timely as has been noticed by the writ Court in Para 3 of the impugned judgment and order which reads as under:- "3. After a long litigation, salary to the petitioner was paid amounting to Rs.1,76,000/- on 29.11.2007 and Rs.40,000/- towards salary and allowances for the period from 22.07.2004 to 21.01.2007, however, no action whatsoever has been taken to make payment of arrears of salary for the period from

16.08.1992 to 21.07.2004. Thereafter, Rs.6,93,942/- towards salary (arrears) the period

16.08.1992 to 21.07.2004 and it was paid on

31.03.2008, which is evident on perusal of page 38 to the counter affidavit contained as CA-1."

12. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner is that the order dated 6/13.03.2019 did not refer to Writ- A No. 7844 of 2008 which was filed specifically claiming interest on the delayed payment of salary and arrears thereof and about which the State was aware, therefore, the said writ petition was not governed by the statement recorded in the order dated 15.04.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 10324 (S/S) of 2019. As such, the contention of the appellants that this order was not filed with the writ petition out of which this special appeal arises, is in consequential. 4 SPLA No. 495 of 2022

13. The aforesaid writ petitions were withdrawn in 2019 in view of judgment dated 15.04.2019. The salary and arrears thereof were paid by the appellants to the respondent-petitioner in 2007/2008. Thereafter, Writ Petition bearing No. 5203 (S/S) of 2008 was filed by the respondent- petitioner claiming interest on delayed payment of salary/arrears thereof which was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to take a decision in the matter, on 10.09.2008. The authority declined the claim of the respondent-petitioner to interest on 23.10.2008 which led to filing of Writ- A No. 7844 of 2008 which remained pending all along and has been decided by the impugned judgment.

14. Apart from the above, what we find is that such a condition on the face of it was quite unconscionable and unconstitutional. If the appellants undisputedly paid the salary and arrears thereof albeit belatedly, then, why would a person not claim the interest thereon unless a compromise was arrived at between the parties assuming it could be done in writing or there was any such undertaking specifically that no interest would be claimed on the delayed payment of arrears of salary. On joint reading of judgment dated 15.04.2019 with the order dated 6/13.03.2019 which is on record in the connected appeal, we do not find any reference to Writ - A No. 7844 of 2008. The respondent-petitioner has only been awarded 6% interest on delayed payment. The payment was delayed is not in dispute. The only contention before us was that it was not open for the respondent- petitioner to press this claim, which, we find to be untenable because the Writ- A No. 7844 of 2008 was filed prior to Writ Petition No. 10324 (S/S) of 2019 which was decided on 15.04.2019 and said judgment does not refer to Writ - A no. 7844 of 2008 nor does the order dated 6/13.03.2019. 5 SPLA No. 495 of 2022

15. In view of the above, this is not a fit case for interference in an intra court appeal. Substantial justice has been done.

16. Both the special appeals are dismissed. November 21, 2025 R.K.P. (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Shri Mohit Jauhari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Special Appeal No. 35 of 2022 is delayed.

4. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay which is two days, is sufficient. 2 SPLA No. 495 of 2022

5. The application for condonation of delay bearing No. 1 of 2022 filed in Special Appeal Defective No. 35 of 2022 is allowed and the delay is condoned.

6. We now proceed to hear both the appeals on merits.

7. We have taken Special Appeal No. 495 of 2022 as leading special appeal.

8. This is an appeal by the State challenging judgment and order dated

07.04.2022 passed by the writ Court in Writ - A No. 7844 of 2008 by which interest @ 6% on delayed payment of salary/ arrears of salary has been awarded.

9. The only contention raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that in the earlier round of litigation i.e Writ Petition No. 10324 (S/S) of 2019 filed by the respondent-petitioner all these issues have been settled and it was decided that the respondent/petitioner shall not raise any other claim in respect of the writ petitions referred in the order dated 6/13.03.2019. Accordingly, a direction was issued in the said writ petition on 15.04.2019 for paying the post retiral dues.

10. Prior to filing of the aforesaid writ petition which was decided on

15.04.2019 the respondent- petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition No. 1051 (S/S) of 1995 pertaining to payment of salary which was not being paid; Writ Petition No. 2755 (S/S) of 2000 which raised a challenge to her oral termination; Writ Petition No. 2419 (S/S) of 2006 which raised a challenge to her written termination from service; Writ Petition No. 9972 (S/S) of 2006 which pertained to a challenge raised by the respondent- petitioner to an appointment made in her place; Writ Petition No. 2618 (S/S) of 2013 which raised a challenge to her suspension, therefore, in 3 SPLA No. 495 of 2022 view of the aforesaid statement in the judgment dated 15.04.2019 at best no claim could be raised with respect to aforesaid writ petitions.

11. In this regard learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner says that in Writ Petition No. 1051 (S/S) of 1995 no relief was prayed regarding interest on delayed payment of salary. Only the salary which was not being paid, was sought. The salary was paid in 2007 after passing of several interim orders and initiation of contempt proceedings, but, even that was not paid timely as has been noticed by the writ Court in Para 3 of the impugned judgment and order which reads as under:- "3. After a long litigation, salary to the petitioner was paid amounting to Rs.1,76,000/- on 29.11.2007 and Rs.40,000/- towards salary and allowances for the period from 22.07.2004 to 21.01.2007, however, no action whatsoever has been taken to make payment of arrears of salary for the period from

16.08.1992 to 21.07.2004. Thereafter, Rs.6,93,942/- towards salary (arrears) the period

16.08.1992 to 21.07.2004 and it was paid on

31.03.2008, which is evident on perusal of page 38 to the counter affidavit contained as CA-1."

12. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner is that the order dated 6/13.03.2019 did not refer to Writ- A No. 7844 of 2008 which was filed specifically claiming interest on the delayed payment of salary and arrears thereof and about which the State was aware, therefore, the said writ petition was not governed by the statement recorded in the order dated 15.04.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 10324 (S/S) of 2019. As such, the contention of the appellants that this order was not filed with the writ petition out of which this special appeal arises, is in consequential. 4 SPLA No. 495 of 2022

13. The aforesaid writ petitions were withdrawn in 2019 in view of judgment dated 15.04.2019. The salary and arrears thereof were paid by the appellants to the respondent-petitioner in 2007/2008. Thereafter, Writ Petition bearing No. 5203 (S/S) of 2008 was filed by the respondent- petitioner claiming interest on delayed payment of salary/arrears thereof which was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to take a decision in the matter, on 10.09.2008. The authority declined the claim of the respondent-petitioner to interest on 23.10.2008 which led to filing of Writ- A No. 7844 of 2008 which remained pending all along and has been decided by the impugned judgment.

14. Apart from the above, what we find is that such a condition on the face of it was quite unconscionable and unconstitutional. If the appellants undisputedly paid the salary and arrears thereof albeit belatedly, then, why would a person not claim the interest thereon unless a compromise was arrived at between the parties assuming it could be done in writing or there was any such undertaking specifically that no interest would be claimed on the delayed payment of arrears of salary. On joint reading of judgment dated 15.04.2019 with the order dated 6/13.03.2019 which is on record in the connected appeal, we do not find any reference to Writ - A No. 7844 of 2008. The respondent-petitioner has only been awarded 6% interest on delayed payment. The payment was delayed is not in dispute. The only contention before us was that it was not open for the respondent- petitioner to press this claim, which, we find to be untenable because the Writ- A No. 7844 of 2008 was filed prior to Writ Petition No. 10324 (S/S) of 2019 which was decided on 15.04.2019 and said judgment does not refer to Writ - A no. 7844 of 2008 nor does the order dated 6/13.03.2019. 5 SPLA No. 495 of 2022

15. In view of the above, this is not a fit case for interference in an intra court appeal. Substantial justice has been done.

16. Both the special appeals are dismissed. November 21, 2025 R.K.P. (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench