HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 1689 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Piyush Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3, ie. The District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh. The contentions put forth by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was appointed in the year 2001, sought financial concurrence personally as well as through the Committee of Management, which ultimately was granted vide order dated 15.09.2004, after instituting a writ petition no. 6231 (SS) of 2001, wherein, an interim order was passed for deciding the representation of the petitioner. He submitted that the financial concurrence was granted in-pursuant to the interim order dated 24.11.2001, vide order dated 15.09.2004. He submitted that the writ petition no. 6231(SS) of 2001 was dismissed on 19.09.2019 and the then District Inspector of Schools, vide order dated 07.12.2019, restrained the salary of the petitioner to be paid. He also submitted that the writ petition was restored on 01.09.2020 as the application for recall was submitted by the petitioner well within time and thereafter a Government Order was passed on 09.11.2023, whereby, the salary of the petitioner, like other identically situated Teachers, has been stopped. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the financial concurrence was granted by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 15.09.2004 and that was not withdrawn prior to 09.11.2023. He added that the interim order which was passed in the writ petition was to the effect to decide the representation, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools while applying his wisdom, has taken decision for granting financial concurrence. He submitted that there is no reason to stop the salary of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahendra Pratap Singh, Ranjit Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Devendra Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner as there is no any impact of the writ petition being dismissed during the period of 19.09.2019 to 07.12.2019. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that since the financial concurrence was in effect between 19.09.2019 to 07.12.2019, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for salary for the said period of time, therefore, submission is that the order dated 10.01.2025 is erroneous and is liable to be quashed. Mr. Piyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was done unlawfully, therefore, on 10.01.2025, the District Inspector of Schools had rightly taken the decision. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed in year 2001 and once the salary was not paid, he moved writ petition no. 6231 (SS) of 2001, wherein, the direction was given to decide the representation of the petitioner and in-compliance thereof, the District Inspector of Schools has granted approval on 15.09.2004. When this Court examines the impugned order in law and facts, it is apparent that financial concurrence was granted as an independent decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools on representation made by the petitioner and there was no order for granting financial approval. The Writ Petition was dismissed in default on 19.09.2019, which was restored after the application for the recall was moved well within time on 01.09.2020, therefore, there would have no impact of any kind, of the dismissal of the writ petition regarding the payment of salary in-pursuant to the financial concurrence granted on 15.09.2004. The reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 10.01.2025, are unrelated to the grounds on which the petitioner's salary was stopped. Consequently, the order dated 10.01.2025 is erroneous and the same is hereby quashed. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to make payment of the petitioner's salary from 19.09.2019 to 01.09.2021, within period of six weeks. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed. November 27, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 1689 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench