Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141221 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15585 of 2012 Petitioner :- Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Sharma,Y.K. Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Yadav,Navaneet Kumar Shukla,Praval Tripathi Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the seniority as Principal of the Intermediate College since 12.07.2001, salary of the Principal of the Intermediate College since 12.07.2001 less the salary received by the petitioner as Lecturer and other service benefits since 12.07.2001. 3. The petitioner based on the experience as Lecturer in Shambhu Dayal Modern School Sonepat made an application for the post of Principal and accordingly, he was selected on the said post by the Secondary Education Service Selection Board and issued appointment letter on 12.07.2001. Subsequently, petitioner has been allotted fourth respondent-institution by the respondents vide order dated 14.08.2001. But, the fourth respondent, for the reasons best known, has not permitted the petitioner to join duties and the institution has not allowed the petitioner to function as Principal pursuant to the selection made by respondent no.2. The petitioner has made several representations to the concerned authorities for permitting him to join duties. When the said representations were not considered, the petitioner left with no option approached this Court by way of Writ A No. 65409 of 2009 and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent nos. 4 to 6 therein to permit the petitioner to join the institution within three weeks or else file a counter affidavit by the reasons mention in it on 05.01.2010. Consequent to the said directions, the respondents have permitted the petitioner vide order dated 4.2.2010 and released salaries also and continued till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation i.e. on 31.03.2022. Though he has been retired attaining the age of superannuation in 2022, but the respondents have not released salaries to the petitioner from 12.07.2001 to 04.02.2010 and also post retiral benefits. 4. Though respondents have filed their counter affidavit, but they have specifically denied the payment of salary to the post of Principal from 12.07.2001 to 04.02.2010 as is barred by delay and laches. Further, as far as release of pension is concerned, they have stated that the petitioner has not produced any document pertaining to the services rendered in the State of Haryana from 1991. Hence, the respondents are unable to process the pensionary benefits. Further, they have stated that as per the new policy, persons appointed after 01.04.2005 are entitled only as per the New Pension Scheme and they are not entitled to Old Pension Scheme. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted monthly pension of Rs. 9334/- based on the record available. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, as the petitioner was appointed/selected by the second respondent-Board, the said aspect was not in dispute and after selection, the petitioner was allotted to fourth respondent-institution vide proceedings dated 14.08.2001. When these documents are admitted, the petitioner was selected and allotted institution by the State authorities. That shows that the petitioner was appointed as Principal from 14.08.2001. If the respondent no.4 has not permitted the petitioner to join the said institution as per the allotment dated 14.08.2001, it is the duty of respondent nos. 2 and 3 to persuade respondent nos. 4 and 5 and it is not the fault of the petitioner if he failed to join as per the orders of the respondent no.2 and by the order dated 14.08.2001, respondents may decline the payment of salary, but when he was forcefully prevented to function as Principal as per the order dated 14.08.2001, he is entitled for salary from the date of selection and appointment, unless and until the said selection is cancelled by the competent authority. 6. In the instant case, as per the averments made in the counter affidavit clearly discloses that selection was made by the second respondent and the petitioner was allotted to the fourth respondent-institution vide proceedings dated 14.08.2001 and the selection was not interdicted by any competent authority or Court. That being the situation, petitioner is entitled for payment of salary from initial appointment i.e. 14.08.2001. Further, when the date of appointment is taken as 14.08.2001, his pension is also to be considered as per Old Pension Scheme. 7. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent no.3 to consider the case of the petitioner by taking the date of appointment as 14.08.2001 and release salary till 4.2.2010. Further, the respondents may also consider the case of the petitioner according to Old Pension Scheme and release all pensionary benefits to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad