HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 217 of 2019 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. 1. After hearing Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Nitesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 what comes out is that the writ petition was decided only on the basis of written instructions received by the State Counsel without calling for a detailed counter affidavit by the State which has been directed to pay salary to the respondent no.1 from the State Exchequer, the institution in question being on grant-in-aid list. Further we find that the Committee of Management was also not represented before the writ court. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 says that it was not put to notice. 3. The allegation in the appeal is about fictitious and fraudulent documents having been prepared and interpolated. 4. Without going into the merits of the issues, as the learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition in the manner as noticed herein above which is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice, we set aside the impugned judgement dated 25.04.2018. Consequently, the Writ Petition 11193(S/S) of 2018 shall stand restored to its original number which shall now be considered and decided by learned Single Judge after issuing notice to the Committee of Management and calling for a counter affidavit from the opposite parties. The State shall file counter affidavit Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Lalit Kishore Tiwari, Nitesh Yadav State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Madhyamik Shiksha And Ors .....Appellant(s) Raj Kumar Singh And Ors. .....Respondent(s) within four weeks. 5.Learned Single Judge has directed the State to pay salary for the period of about three years merely on the basis of some casual approach cited by it. After going through the written instructions, we are of the opinion that the matter required a more indepth consideration as to the nature of appointment and the entitlement of the respondent no.1-petitioner to salary for the said period as claimed specially as the writ petition itself was filed in the year 2018 whereas the salary was being claimed for the period 2012-2015. 6.The appeal is accordingly allowed. November 20, 2025 Shahnaz SPLA No. 217 of 2019 2 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench