HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 9270 of 2003 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. Heard Shri Rahaul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed for the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the undated impugned order, passed by the respondent no.(1) (At annexure no.9 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents not to make any interference in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner, as Assistant teacher in the institution in question and to pay him regular salary for the said post month by month as and when same falls due, alongwith entire arrears of the same, with 18 % interest." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submission that, though the petitioner was not considered for approval he constrained to file Writ Petition No.16583 of 1996. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.05.1996 directing to respondent no.1 to examine the matter of the petitioner's claim for payment of their salary and to pass requisite orders, within period of three weeks. 4. Based on that the financial approval accorded by respondent no.1, the petitioner appointment was approved vide order dated 14.06.1996 and while the things stood thus, when there is a claim made by one teacher Jairam Singh, who has also approached this Court in other writ petition. When the matter has been remanded to authorities, accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools has considered the claims of both teacher and passed order on Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Govind Krishna, Narendra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kr.Srivastava Behcan Singh .....Petitioner(s) District Inspector Of Schools Maharajganj And Another .....Respondent(s) 09.03.1999, the operative portion reads as follows:- "सभी पक्षों/िवपक्षी की दलीलें सुनने एवं साक्ष्य के आधार पर श्री जयराम िसह एवं श्री बेचन िसह सहायक अध्यापक ने सु०क०स०इ० का मौलगंज में कायर्रत मानते हुए वेतन भुगतान की अनुमन्यता प्रदान की जाती है। " 5. As per the above said orders, the authority has considered the appointment of both teachers and held that both are entitled for absorption. Accordingly, the petitioner has continued in the Institution and subsequently the respondents have released the salaries from July, 1996 to October, 1998 and for rest of the period even after passing the said orders the respondents have not released the salaries, hence the present writ petition is filed. 6. Considering the submissions, this Court has passed interim order on 27.02.2003 permitting the petitioner to continue to work. Accordingly, the petitioner has continued and retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019. 7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though the respondents have considered and accorded financial approval of the petitioner on 14.06.1996, but based on the directions issued by this Court writ petition filed by one Jairam Singh, the authorities has considered appointments of both the teachers and have passed an order on merits on 09.03.1999. Once the competent authority has considered and passed an order, the respondents has no option except to pay the salaries to the petitioner based on the continuity of service. But surprisingly, the respondents- the very same authority has rejected the claim for release of the salary vide undated impugned order. He has further submitted that from the interim directions granted by this Court, the petitioner has continued and retired from service, hence, he is entitled for arrears of salary as well as pension/ post retirement benefits. 8. After notice the respondents have filed counter and supplementary counter affidavit. Though, they have accepted in the counter affidavit about the passing of the order on approving the appointment of both teachers vide order dated 09.03.1999, but they have not able to place any provision/ statute to review the earlier order. Once the authority has passed an order, therefore, the same authority is not entitled to review its own orders without having the statutory support. In the instant case, the first-respondent has considered the case of the petitioner and accorded financial approval on 14.06.1996 and WRIA No. 9270 of 2003 2 further as directed by this Court the authority has considered the appointments of the petitioner as well as the one Jairam Singh and upheld the appointment of the petitioner that being the position the respondents have no option except to release the salary. 9. In view of the above observations, the undated impugned order is set aside in view of the retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation, the present writ petition is disposed of directing to respondents to consider and release the salaries which are due to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months, from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order. 10. It is further directed that by taking the continuity of service, the second- respondent is directed to sent the proposals for post retirement benefits and for pension within a period of one month, from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order and after receipt of the said proposals, the first-respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate order by releasing all post retirement benefits and all consequential benefits, within a period of two months, thereafter. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. September 4, 2025 AdityaG WRIA No. 9270 of 2003 3 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad