Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 201960 (ALL)

SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.THROUGH SECY SECONDARY EDUCAITON

SPLA/1140/2005 · 2025-10-16

Rajan Roy, Rajeev Bharti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1140 of 2005 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. On 09.10.2025, we had passed the following order:- "List in the next week as prayed by the appellant's counsel. No further adjournment shall be granted." 2. Today again, adjournment slip has been given on behalf of the appellant's counsel, which is rejected. 3. There is no interim order operative in this appeal. 4. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.11.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7105(S/S) of 2001 'Surendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. and others' and connected petition bearing Writ Petition No.1814(S/S) of 2004 'Committee of Management versus State of U.P. and others', by which both the petitions were dismissed. 5. Learned Single Judge had opined that the post, on which the Management appointed the appellant, was not created with the approval of the Director of Education, which is mandatory under Section 7 of the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971, therefore, the Director could not to be faulted for passing the order dated 17.09.2001. The sanction for new sections/ subjects was given under Section 7-A without financial aid and with the clear stipulation that expenditure in this regard would be borne Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ramesh Pandey, Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kr. Singh Kalhans Surendra Pratap Singh .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P.Through Secy Secondary Educaiton .....Respondent(s) by the Management and not the State, therefore, there was no liability of the State to pay salary to the appellant under the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971. 6. The liability to pay salary, if any, was on the Management which has not challenged the impugned judgment by filing any appeal. The appointment of the appellant was also without approval of the Director and without creation of post. 7. With the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this case and it is, accordingly, dismissed. October 16, 2025 Mohd. Sharif SPLA No. 1140 of 2005 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench