HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 19189 of 2018 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material placed on record. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 7.4.2018 passed by the respondent no.5 by which he has rejected the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary on their respective posts. Contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been appointed on various posts of teaching and non- teaching in the institution, namely, Sri Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya Karaundiya, Sultanpur and the payment of salary has still not been done. He submitted that the petitioners approached by way of instituting Writ-A No.27342 of 2016 wherein the respondent no.5 is directed to take fresh decision on the representation/claim of the petitioners whereafter the order impugned dated 7.4.2018 is passed. He argued that in fact, the aforesaid order has not been passed in consonance with the circular/order/regulation applicable to the petitioners, rather it has been considered in the light of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Head of Institution) Teachers and others Employees of the Institutions) Regulations, 2009. He submitted that the respondent no.5,without being any reason for coming to the conclusion that the post has not been Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Jauhari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Govind Tripathi And Ors. .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. And Ors. .....Respondent(s) sanctioned, has observed that no post is sanctioned. He further submitted that the one Smt. Kiran Shukla approached this Court by way of instituting Writ-A No.19043 of 2018 wherein final order was passed on 29.8.2018. He submitted that the petitioners are also identically situated employees of the same institution where Smt. Kiran Shukla is working on the post of clerk. Therefore, submission is that the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that since there is no creation of post in the institution in question, on which the petitioners are claiming themselves to be appointed and, therefore, there is no question with respect to payment of salary to them. Upon considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while passing the order dated 29.8.2018 in Writ-A No.19043 of 2018, has quashed the identical order dated 7.4.2018 and has directed the competent authority to take a fresh decision with speaking and reasoned order. In view of the above, the order dated 7.4.2018 passed by the respondent no.5 is hereby quashed. The matter is also remitted back to the Competent Authority to take fresh decision in accordance with law regarding the claim of the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is hereby disposed of. December 5, 2025 Ram Murti WRIA No. 19189 of 2018 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench