Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72542 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33009 of 1993 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Respondent :- D.I.O.S. Mirzapur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Mani Singh,S.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Awadhesh Prasad,R.K Singh Gaharwar Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Prasad learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.09.1992 wherby the claim of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court, dated 08.07.1992 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24417 of 1992 was rejected. 3. Based on the increasing strength of the students in the Institution, the District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur, directed the Manager of the Institution to open more Sections in Class VIth to Class Xth. Therefore, the Committee of Management sent proposal for creation of the posts to the District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur, on 10.04.1987. Accordingly, permission was accorded for creation of new Sections in Class VIth to Class Xth on 05.06.1987 by sanctioning three posts of LT Grade and 5 posts of CT Grade. 4. The petitioner was appointed into post of CT Grade vide order dated 29.06.1986. By that time, the Institution was not admitted into grant-in-aid. As per proposal sent by the Committee of Management i.e. 3rd respondent herein informed that the Institution was admitted to grant-in-aid vide order dated 01.04.1991. Though the Institution was admitted into grant-in-aid but the salary was not paid to the petitioner, he approached this Court by way of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24417 of 1992. Instead of releasing salary as directed by this Court, the Ist respondent has passed the order rejecting claim of the petitioner on 26.09.1992. Though the said order was passed on 26.09.1992 but the same was provided to the petitioner on 15.06.1993. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that on the sole ground, claim of the petitioner has been rejected stating therein that the Committee of Management is not able to provide creation of posts. Rejection of petitioner's claim is contrary to records. In fact, as per recommendation sent by the 3rd respondent, the competent authority has sanctioned one post of Head Master, three post of LT Grade and five posts of CT Grade to the Institution. Once the said posts were already created and sanctioned and subsequently the said posts were admitted into grant-in-aid, the respondents ought not to say that the Committee of Management is not able to provide creation of posts which is not only contrary to records but also against the principles of natural justice. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has mainly laid emphasis on annexure no.4 to the writ petition which pertains to the creation / sanction of posts by the competent authority to the Institution. Once the record reveals that the said posts were sanctioned, based on the proposal sent by the 3rd respondent, the authority ought not to have rejected claim of the petitioner for salary on the ground of non-providing the sanctioned posts for which the petitioner is not competent person. 7. Learned Senior Counsel has further contended that as per assertions made in the writ petition at paragraph no.5, the same was not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. It has been further brought to the notice of this Court that in view of the interim orders granted by this Court on 16.09.1993, the petitioner has been continued in services. Subsequent to attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.03.2025. The petitioner's salary has been paid in view of interim order, he is also entitled for post retiral benefits. 8. In reply to the said averments, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has not denied to the creation and sanction of posts as annexed with annexure no.4 to the writ petition. 9. Considering the submissions of learned Senior Counsel and also on perusal of Annexure No.4, as above posts have been sanctioned for the Institution, the respondents ought not to reject the claim of the petitioner on that ground. Hence the impugned order is held as contrary to record and accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.09.1992 is quashed. 10. As the petitioner has been continued in services and in view of the interim order granted by this Court on 16.09.1993, the respondents have no other option but to accept and release of full salary to the petitioner. It is needless to say that the respondents - authorities shall also settle post retiral benefits of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad