Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75333 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4566 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rpem Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharamraj Singh,Kush Kumar Pandey,Santosh Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade on 11.9.1995. The appointment of the petitioner was approved on 6.6.1996 by the District Inspector of Schools. Thereafter, the petitioner has retired on 31.3.2020. By the impugned order, the retiral benefits of the petitioner are not being released on the ground that the petitioner was appointed in CT Grade cadre, which was declared as dying cadre in the year 1989. The petitioner's appointment was on Assistant Teacher in LT Grade, which was approved by the respondent authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Writ-A No.13461 of 2003, Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs. Director of Education (Madhyamik) Lucknow and others decided on 2.12.2019 to submit that although CT Grade was declared to be a dying cadre. However, the substantive post in the CT Grade was automatically changed to the LT Grade as per the Government Order dated 4.9.1990, which has been extracted in the judgment dated 2.12.2019. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that till date neither the approval order nor the appointment has been cancelled. Even otherwise, after the retirement the aforesaid issue could not have been raised. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition however, could not dispute the judgment dated 2.12.2019 passed in Writ-A No.13461 of 2003 and also could not dispute the fact that the CT Grade vacancies were upgraded to LT Grade on the fact that the CT Grade cadre being declared as dying cadre. 6. In the present case, it is to be seen that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and approval was granted in the year 1996. The petitioner retired on 31.3.2020 from the post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade. Neither the appointment nor the approval till date has been cancelled by the respondent authorities. The approval itself has attained finality in the year 1996 and it was at the time of the approval that the respondent authorities were obliged under law to have examine the issue. Once the approval was granted the clock cannot be put back after the retirement of the petitioner. The Government Order dated 4.9.1990 itself clarifies that the CT Grade vacancy was also changed to LT Grade. Even otherwise, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade. There is no explanation offered by learned Standing Counsel as to why the aforesaid issued was not examined at the time of approval. The orders passed by the respondent authorities at various stages attained finality and there should be estoppel once there is an order passed by respondent authorities to revisit the issue. 7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 19.2.2022 passed by Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut and order dated 2.3.2022 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Bhaskar Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad