Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106320 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35760 of 1998 Petitioner :- Sweta Singh And Others Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools Mau And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Rai, H.K. Singh, Irshad Ali, Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 7.9.1998 passed by respondent no.1 with a consequential direction to the respondents to pay salaries to the petitioner as admissible to the post of Assistant Teacher in primary section on the basis of month to month. 3. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution and against it has been restored. After that this Court has considered the submissions of learned Senior Counsel and passed following orders on 31.05.2022: "Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sir Jigar Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 07.08.2018 passed by respondent no. 1, District Inspector of Schools, Mau. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by the impugned order the D.I.O.S., Mau directed that the salary of the petitioners shall not be paid till the inquiry is pending against the petitioners and other such employee. This court by the order dated 12.10.2012 sought the status of inquiry from the learned Standing Counsel and accordingly a personal affidavit of respondent no. 1 was filed before this court wherein the report of the inquiry committee was brought on record which was in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the salary was being paid to be petitioners but unfortunately the writ petition got dismissed in default by the order dated 23.10.2017 of this court and thereafter the respondents stopped payment of salary to the petitioners. He has submitted that now the writ petition has resorted on 12.01.2021 but the respondents have not started payment of salary to the petitioners. After hearing the rival contentions, it appears that the grounds for stopping the salary of the petitioners due pendency of inquiry in no more, since it has been concluded in their favour. Learned Standing Counsel prays for sometime to enquire about the current status of working of the petitioners and payment of salary. Accordingly, list this case again in 07.07.2022." 4. Also on 8.9.2022, following order was passed: "1. No compliance appears to have been made to the last order dated 31.05.2022. 2. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has again referred to supplementary counter affidavit of Sri Vijay Prakash Singh, the then DIOS, Mau sworn on 30.08.2017. Copy of that affidavit had been served on learned counsel for the petitioners. The same is not on record. Office to trace out the same and place it on record. 3. Earlier, upon writ petition being filed, salary payment had been revived. However, the same is lying suspended since 2019 owing to the earlier dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution. 4. Let self attested set of pleadings be made available to the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Learned Standing Counsel may obtain complete instructions within a period of five days. 5. List on 15.09.2022 at the top of the list. 6. It is made clear, unless instructions indicate otherwise the writ petition may be allowed on the next date." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of instructions has submitted that based on the said two orders, respondents have released salaries to the petitioners except the period where the matter has been dismissed for non-prosecution and till restoration of the writ petition . 6. In said circumstances, as the impugned order has been passed, based on some complaint and pendency of inquiry. The fact remains that the said inquiry has been concluded and the respondents have also brought the inquiry report along with affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry report is in favour of the petitioners, hence they are entitled to salaries continuously. 7. The said aspect has not been denied by learned Standing Counsel. In view of the above, as the inquiry report is in favour of the petitioners, the impugned order dated 7.9.1998 passed by respondent no.1 would automatically cased, accordingly same is set aside. Hence liberty is given to the petitioners to make fresh representation/claim petition to the concerned authorities, within a period of one month. The respondents may consider the claim of the petitioners as per the findings of the inquiry report and release salaries/dues, within a period of two months from the date of filing of the such claim. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad