Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24307 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8583 of 2019 Petitioner :- Dr. Phulena Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secretary Higher Education, Lucknow And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh K. Dwivedi,C.S.C.,Shesh Kumar Srivastava,Ved Byas Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. This writ petition is pending since 2019. Petitioner before this Court has earlier filed a Writ A No. 43159/2015 which was disposed of along with other writ petition vide detailed order dated 22.09.2017 whereby impugned orders therein dated 31.12.2003 and 16.07.2015 were set aside i.e. a dispute in regard to appointment of petitioner as well as one Madan Mohan Pandey made against a single vacant post, though their subjects were different and dispute of salary was referred to State to take a fresh decision. 2. It is not disputed that petitioner was earlier appointed against a vacancy arose due to termination of one Ramesh Prasad Mishra in the year 1977, however, later on his termination was cancelled and he joined the services on 15.07.1984, however, petitioner also continued on his post. Later on, Ramesh Prasad Mishra got retired and consequentially, on said post, in pursuance of a fresh advertisement, one Madan Mohan Pandey was appointed. 3. In aforesaid circumstances, a fresh order was passed by Additional Chief Secretary dated 24.08.2018 whereby it was held that salary of petitioner cannot be paid by State but it has to be paid by Committee of Management. Relevant paragraph of order is quoted below :- “9. जजलल ववदललय वनररकक कक आखयल एवव अवभललखख मम शर अवधलश पलणडलय, (वयलकरणलचलयर) अधयलपक वयलकरण एवव शर फफ ललनल शफकलल, (एम०ए०बर०एड०) अधयलपक आधफवनक ववषय कल वनयफवक अनफममदन मम समपपणलरननद सवसकक त ववशववदललय वलरलणसर दलरल यह उललख हह वक उक अधयलपकगण कल अनफममदन कलयरभलर गहण करनल कक वतजथ सल अजधवनयम कक धलरल 31(11) कल अनतगरत इस पवतबनध कल सलथ पदलन वकयल जलतल हह वक जम पद शलसन दलरल सवरकक त नहह हह, उनकल आजथरक भलर पबनधतत ” वहन करलगल। 4. Aforesaid order is impugned in present writ petition. 5. S/Sri Rahul Agarwal and Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned advocates for petitioner has referred contents of paragraph 45 of writ petition as well as order dated 19.05.1992 passed by Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit) and for reference, both are quoted below :- “45. That the order dated 24.08.2018 also overlooks the fact that as mentioned in the approval letter dated 19.05.1992, the approval was granted by Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit) to the institution to fill up the vacancy arising on account of the retirement of Shri Ram Nayan Mishra on the condition that no approval would be sought to fill up the vacancy caused after retirement or death of the petitioner and Shri Ramesh Prasad Mishra.” ************ Order of 19.05.1992 “ उपयफरक ववषयक वनररकक सवसकक त पलठशललल उतर पदलश इललहलबलद कक सवसतफवत कल आधलर पर शर रलमनयन वमश, सहलयक ववभलगलधयक (वयलकरण) कल ररक पद कल पवत वनयफवक हलतफ इस पवतबवध कल सलथ अहरतल समपन अधयलपक कक वनयफवक हलतफ अनफजल पदलन कक जलतर हह वक आधफवनक ववषय मम वनयफक दमनख अधयलपकख ( शर फफ ललनल शफकल एवव शर रमलश पसलद वमश) मम वकसर कल सलवल वनवकत हमनल अथवल मकतयफ हमनल कल हहए ररक पद पर वनयफवक अनफजल कक मलवग नहह कक जलयलगर। कक पयल समपपणलरननद सवसकक त ववषय ववदललय पथम पररवनयमलवलर 1978 तथल समय समय पर हहए सवशमधनख मम उवलजखत पवकयल कल आधलर पर चयन अनफममदन तदफपरलनत वनयफवक कक कलयरवलहर करनल कल कष करम। ” कक त कलयरवलहर सल वनदलशललय कम भर अवगत करलयल। 6. Learned counsel further submits that aforesaid paragraph has not been replied by State as well as order dated 19.05.1992 was not taken note of in impugned order. 7. Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent fairly submits that aforesaid paragraph is not replied in counter affidavit as well as aforesaid order of 1992 was not taken note of but he further submits that since appointment of petitioner was conditioned which was subsequently removed and, therefore, its legal consequence ought to have been followed but petitioner continued to work under strength of order dated 19.05.1992 and that he has served till age of superannuation. 8. I have considered above submissions and taken note of aforesaid order dated 19.05.1992 as well as submission that it has been ignored in impugned order and Court also takes note that it may be a case that appointment of petitioner becomes irregular after termination of Ramesh Prasad Mishra was set aside and he joined the services, however, since petitioner’s appointment was thereafter protected by order dated 19.05.1992 which still holds good and it has not been reviewed or revisited, therefore, at this stage, long service period of about 38 years could not be ignored. 9. Such long period of service is being protected in a judgment of Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 INSC 7 which is squarely applicable in present case that on basis of an order dated 19.05.1992, which still holds good and that petitioner has worked for a very long period of 38 years. 10. In aforesaid circumstances, impugned order does not survive, hence, set aside and its legal consequence shall follow. 11. This writ petition is disposed of and accordingly, connected writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of this order. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad