Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89893 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11814 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Prasad Vishwakarma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mani Tripathi,D.S.M. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents have not complied with the orders passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6027 of 1999 on 18.01.2007 in toto. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: "In view of above, writ petition deserves to be allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 23.1.1999 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition with consequential benefits. Respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner for the period he had discharged duty against regular post in question. It is provided that no fresh recruitment either on adhoc or temporary basis shall be done unless petitioner's case is considered a fresh in accordance with law. District Inspector of Schools Varanasi is directed to reconsider the controversy in question by passing a speaking and reasoned order expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs" 3. While considering the entire issue, this Court has specifically directed the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the period he had discharged duty against regular post and further directed the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi to reconsider the controversy in question by passing a speaking order. 4. Though the respondents have considered only second limb of the directions and approved appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 28.04.2007 but they have failed to consider the first limb of the directions. Hence this petition. 5. After notice, the respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein they have again taken stand that the Principal of the Institution has not followed the procedure while filling up the posts. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for salary. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record as this Court has earlier specifically directed the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the period he had discharged his duties but surprisingly, the respondents cannot deny without filing any special appeal against the said order. If the respondents have any grievance, they should have filed special appeal. Since the order has attained finality, the respondents cannot take other stand. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad