Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59702 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 72858 of 2010 Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Rai Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awdhesh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri Awdesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed for payment of salary from 28.08.1998 to 30.03.2007. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee pursuant to the notification dated 01.08.1998. The petitioner made an application and accordingly, the petitioner was selected along with two other candidates. Therefore, the 5th respondent issued appointment letter to the petitioner vide order dated 18.08.1998 with effect from 28.08.1998. The said appointment was stayed by District Inspector of Schools, Mau, vide order dated 07.09.1998. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8433 of 2000 as also Management of the Institution has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34555 of 2000. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2000 remanding the matter to the concerned authority to pass appropriate order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 5. To comply with the said order, the respondent no.2 once again passed an order on 06.09.2000. Merely because the said order was not communicated, the petitioner belatedly assailed the said order in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29527 of 2002 on the sole ground that the said order was not communicated to him. The said order was set aside by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2002, once again remanding the matter to the concerned authority. For the reasons best known to the respondent no.2, he rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 31.03.2003. Left with no other option, the petitioner has approached this Court once again by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29299 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.01.2007, with following observations: "In the operative portion of the order dated 31.3.2003, the District Inspector of Schools has relied on a statement made by the present Principal, who stated before the authority concerned that the petitioner was appointed as daftri by the erstwhile Príncipal. The petitioner has placed on record an appointment letter dated 28.8.1998 passed by the erstwhile Principal Sri Awadesh Singh, in which the petitioner was appointed as Parichalak i.e. peon not as a daftri. The impugned order refers in all probabilities to this piece of evidence. The letter of appointment dated 28.8.1998 as issued by Sri Awadesh Singh however discloses the appointment of the petitioner as peon not as a daftri. The District Inspector of Schools has clearly misread the evidence. It has been the petitioner's case all-along that he was appointed as peon along with two others, whose appointment was held to be valid. The two other peons i.e. Surendra Kumar Rai and Suresh Rai., whose appointments held valid, were selected by the same selection process. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Inspector of Schools to reconsider the matter in the light of observation made above. The matter on remand will be reconsidered and decided in accordance with law by a speaking order, after giving to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The impugned order dated 31.3.2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is quashed. The writ petition is disposed of as above" 6. Considering the above said directions, the respondent no.2. has passed the order on 30.03.2007 approving appointment of the petitioner and releasing the salary from that date onwards. 7. Grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the notification issued by the 5th respondent as per rules and procedure and he continued in the said post without any break but for the technical reasons, the respondents could not have approved the appointment of the petitioner till 30.03.2007. Fact remains that the petitioner has continued from 28.08.1998 and hence he is entitled for payment of salary from 28.08.1998 to 30.03.2007. 8. Refuting to the said contention, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit wherein they have admitted about the legal matrix but main grievance is that the petitioner is not entitled for arrears of salary on the ground that previous date in which the petitioner has worked is neither clear by the Principal of the Institution nor by the Management. For that reason, the petitioner is not entitled for any arrears of salary without having approved the working from 28.08.1998 to 30.03.2007. 9. Be that as it may, the 5th respondent - Institution has also filed counter affidavit wherein it clearly stated that the petitioner has worked on the post of Peon since the date of his joining and is continuously working ever since. 10. In view of the assertions made by the 5th respondent in his counter affidavit, it shows that the petitioner has worked from his initial appointment continuously and the admitted fact is that the respondents have already approved the appointment which was made pursuant to the notification dated 01.08.1998, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled for the salary from the date of his initial appointment. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release salary to the petitioner from 28.08.1998 to 30.03.2007 within a period of six week from today. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad