Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90183 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41549 of 1992 Petitioner :- Sk Dwivedi Respondent :- Dios Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K. Srivastava,R. Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- SC Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Sri Hari Prakash Mishra, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Hari Prakash Mishra, . 3. Present writ petition has been filed quashing the orders dated 13.7.1992 with direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as L.T. Grade Teacher in second respondent's school. 4. Petitioner was appointed after following the procedure contemplated under the law on 7.7.1992 and subsequently, proposal was sent to the first respondent for approval of the appointment. The appointment was disapproved/rejected by the first respondent on the ground that there is a ban imposed by the State vide Government Order dated 31.8.1992. Assailing the said orders, present writ petition has been filed. 5. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of record, this Court has passed following orders on 7.11.1992: "Respondent No. 2 shall be served by the petitioner personally. Steps be taken in this regard within one week. List for admission after four weeks. In the meantime, Standing Counsel shall file the counter for respondents No. 1, 2, 3. Until further orders from this Court, the operation of the order dated 13.7.1992 passed by respondent No. 1 shall remain stayed. The respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner, whenever it is due to him." 6. By virtue of the said interim orders, petitioner has continued on the said post and retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2021 and the respondents have also released salaries to the petitioner. In view of said circumstances, as the petitioner has continued and retired, he is entitled to post retiral benefits, which the respondents have not released during pendency of the writ petition. 7. In reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the second respondents has appointed the petitioner without obtaining prior permission/approval, which is mandatory as per the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. Apart from that, there are no existing sanctioned vacancy in the institution, hence, the respondents have rejected the approval. 8. In reply to the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the second respondent has already filed counter affidavit, in which it is stated that there was no vacant sanctioned post in the institution. 9. Considering the said submissions and also perusal of the interim order passed by this Court, the continuation of the petitioner in the said post and releasing of salaries has not been denied by learned Standing Counsel. In such circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner has been retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2021, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for approval and release of post retiral benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad