Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82939 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29670 of 2015 Petitioner :- Uma Nath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Radha Kant Ojha,Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for following relief: "(a) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to release payment of salary of the petitioner from 15.12.1988 to 9.7.1993. (b) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to give petitioners selection grade and other grades as admissible under law. (c) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner as admissible under law." 3. The issue involved in this writ petition is that one Santosh Kumar Srivastava promoted as Principal on ad hoc basis on 15.9.1988 consequent to resignation submitted by the regularly selected candidate and in the resulted vacancy, the petitioner was appointed as L.T. Grade Teacher on 15.12.1988 and from the said date onwards, the petitioner has been continued in the fifth respondent's institution. 4. As the appointment of Santosh Kumar Srivastava was approved by the respondents vide order dated 2.7.1992 w.e.f. 1.9.1988. As far as the petitioner's case is concerned as he was appointed as LT Grade Teacher on 15.12.1988 and his services were approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide proceedings dated 9.7.1993 and from the said date onwards, the respondents have released the payment of salary to the petitioner. 5. As the appointment of the petitioner is not denied by the authorities, but vide impugned order, they have only stated that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed only after 2.7.1992 i.e. from the date of approval granted in favour of the Santosh Kumar Srivastava, who was promoted as Principal on ad hoc basis. Even according to the approval granted in favour of the said Santosh Kumar Srivastava to the post of Principal w.e.f. 1.9.1988. If that being the situation, the respondents ought not to say that the petitioner is entitled for appointment after the approval order passed in favour of Santosh Kumar Srivastava. Admittedly, when services of Santosh Kumar Srivastava was regularized w.e.f. 1.9.1988, it clearly declared that there is short term vacancy available in the institution from the said date. Hence, the appointment of the petitioner in short term vacancy on 15.12.1988 cannot be denied. 6. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that according to Section 33-A of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), services of the petitioner ought to have been regularized in view of the deeming provision. According to the said provision, every teacher directly appointed on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy and who possess qualification, shall be deemed to have been appointed in substantive vacancy, such teacher has been continuously serving in the institution from the date of such appointment. 7. In view of the said provision, the petitioner is entitled for regularization under the deeming provision. In fact, the respondents have passed regularization of services of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 17.07.2014 w.e.f 15.12.1988. Once, the services have been regularized from the date of initial appointment, the respondents ought not to have been denied payment of salary from initial appointment and there is no bar or prohibition that salaries are entitled only from the date of regularization. 8. Learned Senior Counsel has also relied on the observations made by this Court in an identical issue with regard to pension and other benefits in Writ A No. 8234 of 2020 (Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). 9. After notice to the respondents, they have filed the counter affidavit. In paragraph 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, they have stated that Santosh Kumar Srivastava was temporarily promoted to the post of Principal by the respondents vide order dated 02.07.1992 and subsequently, petitioner's services were approved by the respondents vide order dated 9.7.1993. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for payment of arrears. Accordingly, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, the respondents have not denied the appointment of the petitioner dated 15.12.1988 and it is also not in dispute that the respondents have approved the services of Santosh Kumar Srivastava as Principal from 1.9.1988. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be denied payment from the date of initial appointment and also be counting the date from the initial appointment for release of pensionary benefits. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of declaring that the petitioner is entitled for salary from the date of his initial appointment and also directing the respondents to calculate the post retiral benefits by taking salaries from 1.9.1988 and pass appropriate orders with regard to release of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad