HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 11594 of 2012 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. Heard Shri Vivek Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Court has considered the argument of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and has passed the following order on 11.08.2025:- "1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was appointed in clear cut vacancy of LT Grade in the year 1998 after promotion of one Dharamraj Yadav. Subsequently, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, has approved appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 07.01.1999. When salaries were not released consequent to the approval, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.51817 of 1999. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.12.1999. 3. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, vide letter dated 04.03.2000 recommended for release of salaries to the petitioner. Based on the said recommendation, the Secretary, State of U.P. sought report once again. Therefore, the District Inspector of Schools again submitted report on 15.01.2005 confirming the appointment of the petitioner which is in accordance with the Rules. Despite the same, when the respondents have not released salaries to the petitioner, he filed Writ-A No.48757 of 2007. In the said writ petition, this Court has passed certain orders on 14.03.2011. Consequent to the same, the 5th respondent has passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 26.03.2011. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Radha Kant Ojha, Vivek Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Mani Tripathi, Daya Shanker Mani Tripahti, S.D. Ojha Smt. Mamta Singh .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has mainly contended that the impugned order is contrary to records as no principle of natural justice has been followed and also no procedure was followed by terminating services of the petitioner. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents though argued the matter on merit stating that for want of post, services of the petitioner was terminated but he is unable to place any record or finding with regard to the principle of natural justice or procedures which were contemplated in terminating services of the petitioner. Therefore, he requests for shorter time. 7. List this case after one week. " 3. Despite granting time to the respondents to place record with regard to compliance of principles of natural justice. Even today, the State counsel is not able to place to substantiate that before passing the impugned order the respondents have complied with the Rules of principles of natural justice or not. In view of the same, left with no option the Court is under impression that the respondents have not complied with the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.03.2011 is set aside, remanding the matter to the respondents to pass appropriate order as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No.51817 of 1999 order dated 14.12.1999 and also the order in Writ A No.48757 of 2007 order dated 14.03.2011 within a period of one month from today, if the respondents fail to comply with those orders, it further directed to pay interest at the rate of 6 percent till compliance of the above said orders. 4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. September 9, 2025 AdityaG WRIA No. 11594 of 2012 2 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad