2025:AHC:56224 Reserved :- 15/04/2025 Delivered :- 17/04/2025 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40012 of 2005 Petitioner :- Murlidhar Pandey And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thr Sec Dept Of Basic Edu And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,A. Mishra,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.P.N. Giri,Akhilanand Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Petitioners have claimed that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers in primary section of Sri Ram Janki Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya, Dudahi, Kushi Nagar on 01.07.1993 and 21.07.1993 respectively and they regularly discharged their duties till December, 2004, however, from January, 2005, they were precluded from entering institution. 2. It is further case of petitioners that earlier entire staff of said primary section have filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ A No. 31619/1999, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 04.11.1996, that staff be paid salary from State Exchequer including other benefits. However, said order was not complied with and contempt petition was filed and finally primary section of said institution was taken into grant-in-aid vide order dated 04.01.2005 and contempt notice was discharged. 3. It is further case of petitioners that despite aforesaid orders of grant-in-aid, petitioners were denied salary and they have represented to State respondents, however, it remained unheard. 4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate for petitioners have submitted that in the intervening period, some other staff of primary section have filed a Writ A No. 4531/2005 for payment of salary. In said writ petition, it was mentioned that present petitioners have submitted their resignation which was accepted by Committee of Management in its meetings dated 12.08.2003 and 11.09.2003 and since petitioners came to know about aforesaid resolutions, they have approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “a. issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature restraining the respondents from interfering in the functioning of the petitioners as Assistant Teacher in the primary section of Shri Ram Janaki Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya, Dudahi, District Kushi Nagar and to further command the respondents to make regular payment of monthly salary to the petitioners from Government Grant, regularly, every month. b. issue a writ, order or direction of a sutable nature commanding the respondents to disburse to the petitioners the arrears of their salary within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court. c. issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to treat the alleged resignation and resolutions of committee of management dated 12.08.2003 and 11.09.2003 as no nest and having no legal effect.” 5. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that an amendment application was filed on 02.04.2022 whereby certain paragraphs and grounds were proposed that order dated 11.12.2008 passed by Director of Education in compliance of order passed by this Court in above referred writ petition considering claim of petitioners therein, an observation was made in regard to petitioners about their resignations was also 2 challenged to that extent, however, unfortunately, no amendment was proposed in prayer clause. Even resolutions of Committee of Management were not specifically challenged. 6. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that an opportunity be granted to petitioners to file a fresh amendment application. Aforesaid prayer is rejected since despite this writ petition was pending since 2005 and amendment was sought only in the year 2022, therefore, no further opportunity was granted. 7. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that resignation was never send in broad day light. The petitioners have denied that they have ever submitted resignation, therefore, there was no question to accept it. No information was provided to concerned respondents about acceptance of resignations. 8. Per contra, Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned Brief Holder for State and Sri Akhilanand Mishra, learned counsel for respondents have submitted that since proposal of acceptance of resignation is not under challenge, therefore, relief sought cannot be granted. Denial of submission of respective resignation is not supported by any substantial material except vague averments. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused record. 10. This is another case where due to lack of proper pleadings, petitioners are denied from any relief. At the stage of filing of this writ petition in the year 2005, petitioners were well aware about a fact that their respective resignations were accepted by two resolutions of Committee, however, they have not challenged said acceptance/resolution. Even in belated amendment application filed in the year 2022 i.e. after 17 years, no prayer was added to challenge the same and as referred above, learned 3 Senior Advocate is also conscious that without challenging said proposal, relief sought cannot be granted. 11. In aforesaid circumstances, since petitioners have not filed this writ petition with diligence and they have not challenged the proposal passed against them even in an application for amendment, therefore, at this belated stage, in absence of proposed amendment in prayer clause, not only amendment application is rejected but in absence of proper pleadings, this writ petition is also dismissed. Order Date :- April 17, 2025 Sinha_N. [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] 4 Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad