Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 77410 (ALL)

ROHIT KUMAR v. State of UP AND 4 OTHERS

WRIA/10970/2024 · 2025-05-05

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72826 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10970 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar,Narendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. It is admitted case of petitioner that when institution was accorded Grant-in-Aid, his appointment was not against sanctioned post, therefore, his name was not included for payment of his salary from State Exchequer. 2. Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee along with other Class-IV employees also and he was paid salary by Management concerned and when institution was accorded recognition, sanctioned posts were determined, however, when it came into knowledge of State that excess employees were working against sanctioned posts, they were not allowed to work. 3. A clarification dated 02.07.1990 was made that it does not mean that such surplus employees be discontinued from services and since at that stage, there was no question of Grant-in-Aid, therefore, it was only limited to the purpose as mentioned in said clarification i.e. continuance of appointment would not be an assurance for payment of salary from State Exchequer. 4. It is further not disputed that in 2006, the institution was accorded Grant-in-Aid and State has approved payment of salary only to employee appointed against sanctioned posts from State Exchequer. Benefit of earlier notification dated 02.07.1990 could not be extended that even surplus appointees were entitled for payment of salary from State Exchequer. Said interpretation being vague cannot be accepted. 5. In view of above, claim of petitioner to pay his salary from State Exchequer has no legal basis, hence, it is rejected. However, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that in case petitioner has worked in said institution, it is a duty of Institution/Management concerned to pay his salary. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad