Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73500 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 56483 of 2014 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Gautam,Birendra Pratap Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri Udham Singh, holding brief of Sri Birendra Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for direction to the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner including arrears of salary w.e.f. 30.11.2006 to 21.12.2009 and also treat the petitioner in continuous service from the date of initial appointment. 3. Pursuant to the notification issued by the third-respondent on 30.06.2006 which was published in a daily newspaper on 01.07.2006. After subjected to selection process, the petitioner was selected and appointment letter was issued on 26.11.2006 and after verification of certificates and medical examination, petitioner was permitted to join in third-respondent's institution. 4. Subsequently, vide order dated 02.01.2007, the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad has passed an order cancelling the order of Class-IV employees in Government Degree College, Sambhal, Moradabad. The said action has been assailed before this Court in Writ A No. 4673 of 2007, which was allowed vide order dated 22.08.2008 and the order of the Director of Higher Education dated 02.01.2007 was quashed, directing the Director of Higher Education to re-examine the issue after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. In compliance of the said order, respondent no.2, once again issued orders on 28.08.2009 cancelling the appointment. Those orders were subjected to the writ petition before this Court. As directed by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2008, again the respondents allowed the petitioner to join the duties. Accordingly, they are all permitted and the petitioner has transferred to fourth respondent institution. Again on 28.08.2009, the respondents have passed one more order highlighting procedural irregularity and the said order was assailed before this Court in Writ A No. 67854 of 2009, which was disposed of with direction to the Principal Sambhal, Moradabad to allow the petitioners to join duty and discharge their duties and pay emoluments monthly vide order dated 21.12.2009. Subsequently, the Director of Higher Education has withdrawn the earlier order dated 28.8.2009 on the ground that there was no material to support in respect of their applications, and subsequently, petitioners were granted salary from 22.12.2009 onwards. 5. But the fact remains that though petitioners who are working in the institution subsequent to their appointments but they have not been paid salary from 30.11.2006 to 22.12.2009 and the same was represented before the authorities. The respondents have not acted upon the representations made by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition. After notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. Surprisingly, noticing the averments in the counter affidavit, in which they have stated that the petitioners are not entitled to get salary for the period for not working. It is immaterial that his appointment was held valid later on. Salary is earned by discharge of duties with regard to rules and terms and conditions of the employment. As the petitioner has not worked for the particular period, hence, he is not entitled for the salary. 6. Pursuant to the averments made in the counter affidavit as the petitioner subjected to so many litigation and finally his services were regularized based on the interference of this Court in several writ petitions and his appointment was treated from the date of initial appointment. In the said circumstances, when the petitioner was not allowed by the respondents, they cannot say that the petitioner is not entitled for the salary. As the petitioner was appointed and join his duties, he was not able to discharge his duties just because of the respondents did not allow to work. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot deny the salary on the ground that the petitioner has not worked. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim/ regularization and pass appropriate orders with regard to payment of salary to the petitioner including arrears of salary w.e.f. 30.11.2006 to 21.12.2009, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad