1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109230 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8994 of 2021 Petitioner :- Indra Dev Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Damodar Pandey,Mayank Mani,Pusp Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Mayank Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondent no.4, i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar, to pay the salary, arrears of salary, retiral dues and pension with interest within a stipulated period. 3. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of the present case are that:- (i) The petitioner, being qualified, was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 01.07.1977, and since the date of his appointment as Assistant Teacher in the institution, he has regularly worked up to the satisfaction of the superior authorities, there being no complaint against him. The District Basic Education Officer, at present Kushinagar, issued a letter dated 19.08.1985 addressed to the Manager, Mahatma Gautam Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Amawa Bazar, District-Deoria, stating that the services of the petitioner have been regularized after the recommendation of the institution. (ii) Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Education (Basic), U.P. Allahabad, wrote a letter dated 04.02.2003 to the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar, informing that some forged 2 appointments had been made by the Principal of the institution; therefore, needful may be done. Pursuant to the aforesaid, some inquiry was conducted by the District Basic Education Officer, and a report dated 22.01.2004 was placed, giving information about the appointment of Harivansh Yadav & Kedar Yadav as "Paricharak" and Indra Dev Shukla as Language Teacher, which were found to be legal. The payment was not being made to the petitioner; Indra Dev Shukla due to the conduct of Nageshwar Yadav, who was the Principal at that time and was placed under suspension. (iii) In the report, the inquiry officer, Ajay Kumar Tiwari, stated that the appointments of Harivansh Yadav, Kedar Yadav (Paricharak), and Indra Dev Shukla (petitioner) was in accordance with law. Therefore, they were entitled to payment. (iv) The suspended Principal, Nageshwar Prasad Yadav and Peon Kedar Prasad have filed Writ Petition No.31770 of 2003, wherein on 24.08.2018, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order: "1. Called in revise. None appeared on behalf of petitioners. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs: “a/- issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the exparte impugned order dated 26.6.2003 passed by respondent no. 2 as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. b/- issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hold enquiry and be punished to the guilty person.” 3. However, I have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioners are not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for. 4. Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or that petitioners have lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioners is absent. 5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated." 3 (v) In the aforesaid petition, Indra Dev Shukla was also impleaded as one of the respondents. (vi) Subsequently, the petitioner approached before the authorities concerned, but nothing was done. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2014, but till date, salary, retiral dues, and pension have not been paid. He has also referred to the letter dated 26.06.2003, wherein the Joint Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Prayagraj, directed the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar, to look into the matter regarding payment of salary to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Kerala and others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in 1985(1) SCC 429 and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Samal Chand Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2006 (2) ADJ 176. Therefore, a mandamus may be issued directing the respondent no.4 to pay salary/arrears of salary, retiral dues, and pension with interest. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents submits that the institution in question is a recognized institution on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government only for Class 6 to 8. Some managerial dispute arose in the said institution; therefore, the then District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, directed single operation of the account of the said institution. The petitioner is alleged to have been appointed in the institution on the post of Assistant Teacher, and his appointment is alleged to have been approved by the then Basic Education Officer, vide its order dated 19.08.1985. 6. It appears from the record that an objection was made by the Assistant Regional Director of Education (Basic), 7th Region, 4 Gorakhpur, vide letter dated 01.10.2021, regarding appointment/certification of work done. Pursuant to which, the Principal of the said institution was directed to scrutinize and verify as to whether the petitioner had actually worked or not. After scrutiny, a report dated 23.10.2021 was submitted by the Principal of the institution, wherein he has stated about the petitioner had worked as a temporary teacher for a period from 11.07.1997 to 31.07.1999, which has also been submitted earlier by letter dated 25.05.2003. Records have also been placed along with the report. Thus, from the aforesaid report, it is clear that the petitioner was working as a temporary teacher in the said institution from 11.07.1997 to 31.07.1999; a report in this regard has also been submitted on 23.07.2021. 7. It appears from the records that an objection was made by the Assistant Regional Director of Education (Basic), 7th Region, Gorakhpur, vide letter dated 01.10.2021, regarding appointment/certification of working done. Pursuant to which, the Principal of the said institution directed to scrutinize and verify whether the petitioner had actually worked or not. After scrutiny, a report dated 23.10.2021 was submitted by the Principal of the institution, wherein he has stated about the petitioner's work as a temporary teacher for a period from 11.07.1997 to 31.07.1999, which has also been submitted earlier by letter dated 25.05.2003. 8. Records have also been placed along with the report. Thus, from the aforesaid report, it is clear that the petitioner was working as a temporary teacher in the said institution from 11.07.1997 to 31.07.1999; a report in this regard has also been submitted on 23.07.2021. 9. He further submits that the then Principal, Shri Nageshwar Prasad Yadav filed his objection along with evidence vide letter dated 21.09.2021, which was received in the office of respondent no.4 on 5 25.09.2021, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner had filed a handwritten application addressed to the Principal of Hanuman Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Padrauna, Deoria on 08.07.1974. It also mentions about the order of the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria dated 01.01.1975 addressed to Manager, Hanuman Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Padrauna, Deoria granting approval to appointment of the petitioner in "Triple Language Scheme" and his qualification was mentioned as Bachelor of Arts (Sanskrit) and Bachelor of Education. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was working as Sanskrit Teacher in the Triple Language Scheme in Hanuman Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Padrauna, Deoria in the year 1975. The services of the petitioner from the aforesaid institution, i.e. Hanuman Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Padrauna, Deoria were terminated by order dated 19.08.1977. 10. In the aforesaid objection as placed by the then Principal, it has also been mentioned that the petitioner worked as teacher in Maharashi Arvind Vidya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Kasya, District Kushinagar from 11.07.1997 to 31.07.1999. Thus, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner taught in Maharashi Arvind Vidya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Kasya, District Kushinagar and Hanuman Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Padrauna, Deoria, from 11.07.1997 to 31.07.1999, is itself contradictory to his contention that he worked as Assistant Teacher in Triple Language Scheme in the institution since 19.08.1985. Therefore, the benefits of approval to the appointment of petitioner vide order dated 19.08.1985 cannot be given to the petitioner as he had not actually worked or imparted teaching in the said institution. 11. He further submits that the Headmaster of the institution has not provided any material/documents or evidence to show that the petitioner imparted teaching in the said institution. From the 6 objections raised by the then Principal of Hanuman Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Padrauna, Deoria in his letter dated 21.09.2021 as well as the fact that the petitioner has also not placed any testimonials/evidence of his eligibility and qualification as envisaged in U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers), Rules, 1978, relief as prayed cannot be granted. 12. In view of the above, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not attract the present facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The aforesaid facts, regarding letter of the then Principal mentioning the details about the working of the petitioner, could not be denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that few other teachers, who are arrayed as respondents, are managing to get their salary. 14. In view of the above submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as from the records, it is evident that he had never been appointed in the said institution. Even otherwise, his claim cannot be considered, keeping in mind the situation that other teachers have fraudulently obtained appointments and are being paid salaries, in view of settled position of law. Moreover, there are no averments in the petition also that the petitioner has worked for the said period for which he is claiming salary. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad