Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76746-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1038 of 2024 Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. This special appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge dated 31.7.2024, whereby the claim of appellant for payment of salary between 13.10.1988 to 6.3.1998 has been rejected relying upon the fact that in the previous writ petition filed by the appellant no such relief was granted. 2. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, appearing for the appellant has placed reliance upon the prayer made in the previous writ petition, which is as under:- "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.6.1992. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner as lecturer in Psychology in Shyameshwar Mahavidyalaya, Sikriganj, Gorakhpur. (c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to continue paying salary to the petitioner alongwith arrears on that account." 3. During the pendency of the writ petition the services of the appellant was regularized on 6.3.1998. The writ petition, however, remained pending. Ultimately this writ petition of 1992 was dismissed in default in the year 2006. Thereafter the regularization order was recalled. The restoration application filed in the matter came to be allowed on 20.11.2017. The writ petition of the year 1992 was ultimately allowed vide following orders:- "True it is, the regularisation was subject to final decision of writ petition and on dismissal of this writ petition without examining the merits of the case they withdrew the order of regularisation in service. However, on restoration of the writ petition no grounds survives for withdrawal of the order aforesaid. It is also pertinent to notice that the petitioner was in continuous service of the respondent since 1988 to December 2014. The experience gained by the petitioner during the interregnum periods read with Section 31-C of the Act, 1980 are sufficient enough to accept this petition with a direction to treat the petitioner as a substantive Lecturer being regularised as per provisions of Section 31-C of Act, 1980. We don't find any just reason to take a view different than the above. In view of it, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as Lecturer in the subject of Psychology working in a substantive capacity being regularised in service as per provisions of Section 310-C of the Act, 1980. The respondents shall reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. However, he shall not be entitled for the wages pertaining to the interregnum period from the date of his discontinuation from service till continuation in service i.e. 3rd December 2014 to till date. The petitioner shall be entitled for other consequential benefits. No orders as to costs." 4. It is the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 19.12.2017 which is being interpreted by both the parties differently. According to the appellant his writ has been allowed in which prayer was made for payment of salary and, therefore, he is entitled to salary except for the period such relief has been denied to him. 5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, states that though the services of the appellant was protected for the purposes of regularization but no direction was issued for payment of salary and, therefore, a subsequent petition has rightly been held to be not maintainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we feel that the proper course for the appellant would be to get the order dated 19.12.2017 appropriately clarified by moving an application for such purposes. It would not be proper for this Court to interpret the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the earlier writ petition. In such view of the matter, we permit the writ petitioner to withdraw the present appeal as well as Writ-A No.9800 of 2024 and seek appropriate clarification in Writ-A No.33110 of 1992 decided on 19.12.2017. 7. Special appeal as well as Writ-A No.9800 of 2024 is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty, aforesaid. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 RA Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad