HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 2984 of 2022 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue order and direction in nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure no.7) passed by Respondent no.3, Account and Finance Officer, Basic Education, District- Baghpat. (ii) Issue order and direction in nature of mandamus and directing to respondents to grant and release due retirement benefits, gratuity, group insurance, leave encashment etc. alongwith interest from due date by passing appropriate order within specific time in interest of justice according to law. (iii) Issue a suitable order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's wife was duly appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, and her appointment was approved by the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 24.06.1995, along with other teachers and staff. The institution in which the petitioner's wife was appointed, namely Sarvodaya Mandir Junior Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Awadh Narain Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Mishra, C.S.C., Rajesh Yadav Satyavir Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) High School, Mahawatpur Bawli, District Baghpat, is a duly recognized Junior High School by the U.P. Basic Education Board and has been taken under the grant-in-aid list by the State Government. As such, the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 are fully applicable. Pursuant to her appointment, the petitioner's wife joined the said post on 01.07.1995 and worked continuously until her death on 27.04.2006. The petitioner, being entitled to retirement benefits such as G.P.F., leave encashment, insurance, etc., submitted a representation to the concerned authorities, but no action was taken. The Committee of Management prepared all necessary documents for sanctioning the retiral dues and sent to respondent no.2; however, by the impugned order, the petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that his wife was working on a non- sanctioned post. 4. He further submits that the petitioner's wife was duly appointed and her appointment was approved by the respondent no.2. Thereafter, she was permitted to work and was paid salary from the State Exchequer in view of the provisions of Payment of Salary Act, 1978. She was paid salary from the State Exchequer until her death in 2006. Neither her appointment nor the approval was ever cancelled. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed on a non-existent ground, which is illegal and invalid in the eyes of law. 5. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in AIR 2024 SC 260, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was the fault of the authorities concerned for permitting the petitioner's wife to work on a non-sanctioned post. Therefore, in view of the law as laid down in the aforesaid case, the petitioner, being the husband of Smt. Kalawati, is entitled for retiral benefits and other reliefs as prayed for. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that from the impugned order itself, it is evident that the petitioner's wife had earlier filed Writ-A No. 37500 of 2003 (Kiranwati vs. State of U.P. and Others), in which an order was passed on 09.09.2003. In compliance with the said WRIA No. 2984 of 2022 2 order, the Director of Education (Basic) passed subsequent orders dated 13.04.2004 and 30.04.2004. These orders mention that the institution in question was recognized on 11.07.1993 upto High School, and the petitioner's wife was appointed on 01.07.1995. However, although a post had been sanctioned by the Assistant Director (Basic Education), Meerut by order dated 29.05.1995, the same was cancelled by a subsequent order dated 25.06.1997. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner's wife did not serve against any sanctioned post. It is further submitted that the recognition of the institution was withdrawn in the year 2001 by the District Basic Education Officer, Meerut. The aforementioned writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Education (Secondary) to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order in so far as the petitioner is concerned within one month from the date of filing of a certified copy of the order. Until such decision was taken by the Director of Education, the petitioner was to be paid salary. 7. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 09.09.2003, the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow passed the order dated 13.04.2004. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows:- "याची श्रीमती िकरणवती की िनयुिक्त िजस पद के प्रित की गई थी, वह पद सृजन अिधकार रिहत पूणर्तया अिनयिमत ढ़़़ंग से िकया गया था। इस अिनयिमतता के प्रकाश में आने पर सक्षम अिधकारी तथा िजला बेिसक िशक्षा अिधकारी ने वेतन अनुमान्यता भी समाप्त कर दी। ऐसी िस्तिथ में श्रीमती िकरणवती िकसी प्रकार की अनुतोष पाने की अिधकारी नहीं है" 8. Details of other orders passed by the concerned authorities indicate that the petitioner's wife was not working in the institution against a sanctioned post. As the fault lies with the Committee of Management, therefore, the petitioner's wife was directed to approach the Committee of Management for the payment of her salary. 9. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts of the case, as the details regarding the appointment of petitioner's wife to a non-sanctioned post have already been mentioned in the impugned order itself, which were challenged through several writ petitions. Ultimately, it was found that the petitioner's wife was not entitled to the salary, as she was not appointed WRIA No. 2984 of 2022 3 against a sanctioned post. 10. In view of the above, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, as his wife was not appointed to a sanctioned post. The impugned order clearly states that she was appointed on a non-sanctioned post. Since the appointment was not made against a sanctioned post, the petitioner's wife is not entitled to salary or any other benefits. The Committee of Management is responsible for allowing her to work in an unsanctioned post, but this does not entitle the petitioner to any relief. Therefore, the petitioner's claim is without merit and liable to be rejected. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. September 22, 2025 Jitendra/- WRIA No. 2984 of 2022 4 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad