HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10533 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. Short counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P. K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 5, Shri Abhishek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 and Shri Giriraj Prajapati and Shri G. C. Verma, learned counsels for the respondent no. 7. The writ petition has been filed raising a challenge to the order dated 4.8.2025, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent no. 7 per which it has been indicated that as the petitioner is continuously absent from the institution as such his salary is being stopped. Responding Shri G C Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 states on the basis of the averments contained in the short counter affidavit, that an order dated 15.9.2025, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the short counter affidavit, has already been passed whereby the earlier order dated 4.8.2025 has been withdrawn. He further states that by means of order dated 15.9.2025 the petitioner has been required to comply with the order with respect to his joining and providing the papers as mentioned in the said Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Mani Tripathi, Anurag Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Abhishek Kumar Mishra, Ashwini Pathak, Giriraj Prajapati, Girish Chandra Verma Santosh Kumar Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) letter within 3 days. Responding learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite the petitioner regularly attending the institution initially the respondents had stopped the salary by means of order dated 4.1.2025 and even now while passing the order dated 15.9.2025 he has been required to submit various documents which cannot be said to be in the interest of justice more particularly when the petitioner is regularly attending the institution. Attendance of the petitioner in the institution regularly is again denied by Shri G C Verma. At this stage Shri Prajapati has raised an objection that Shri G C Verma is representing some other manager and not the manager who is duly working in the institution. Be that as it may the fact of the matter remains that the order dated 4.8.2025 per which the salary of the petitioner had been stopped already stands withdrawn by the respondents. However considering the contrary claims as have been raised by the petitioner vis a vis respondents that the petitioner is not attending the institution and as per the petitioner that the petitioner is regularly attending the institution yet is not being paid salary, let this aspect of the matter be considered by the competent authority who is said to be the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Let the petitioner submit his claim for salary before the competent authority within two weeks from today. The competent authority shall proceed to consider the claim of the petitioner after calling for requisite documents from the institution and pass a reasoned and speaking order upon the claim of petitioner for payment of salary since June 2025 which order would be passed within six weeks from the petitioner staking his claim in terms of instant order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the controversy as WRIA No. 10533 of 2025 2 raised by learned counsel for the respondents namely Shri Prajapati and Shri G C Verma as to who is the actual manager of the institution. The writ petition is disposed of. September 19, 2025 J. K. Dinkar WRIA No. 10533 of 2025 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench