HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 1938 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3. 2. No notice is being issued to respondent No.4 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 to grant permission/ approval for payment of the pending salary (arrears of salary) for the period from 01.07.1999 to 31.12.2015 to the petitioner, in view of the report and recommendation dated 17.03.2023 submitted by the Registrar/ Inspector, U.P. Madarsa Education Board and sent by the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 23.03.2023 to the respondent No.1, a copy of which is annexure-14 to the petition. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the said report would indicate that the date of joining of the petitioner has been indicated as 01.07.1999 as Principal and it has specifically been observed that the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary with effect from the said date, yet the respondents have failed to act upon the same till date. 5. On the other hand, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions sent by the Deputy Secretary of the State dated 25.07.2025, states that a contradiction has been found in the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prabhaw Kumar Tripathi, Birendra Narain Shukla, Krishna Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohammad Asad Kasmi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Minority Welfare And Waqf And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) aforesaid report, wherein in one part, it has been indicated that the date of joining of the petitioner is 01.07.1999, while in another part of the order, the date from which salary is payable is indicated as 22.12.2015. However, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel, does not dispute that the matter is engaging the attention of the competent authority and that no final decision has yet been taken upon the same. 6. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority, whether the Director, Minority Welfare, i.e., respondent No.2, or the Additional Chief Secretary, i.e., respondent No.1, to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the aforesaid period, considering the report dated 17.03.2023, a copy of which is annexure-14 to the petition, in accordance with law under the relevant rules, which decision would be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 19, 2025 cks/- WRIA No. 1938 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench