Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84921-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1150 of 2024 Appellant :- Satya Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Kant Dixit,Suman Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajeev Kumar Saini Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard Sri Suman Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajeev Kumar Saini, learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is by the writ petitioner who is aggrieved by grant of partial relief to him by learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.05.2024. While allowing the writ petition, learned Single Judge has granted following relief to the writ petitioner:- "....17. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur to the extent that it treats the petitioner not in service at all from 01.04.1999 to 17.04.2000 is quashed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to notionally treat the petitioner in service from 01.04.1999 to 17.12.2000, entitling him to continuity in service for the purpose of reckoning his post retrial benefits. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to salary for the aforesaid period of time." 3. The present appeal has been filed stating that the appellant was also entitled to payment of salary for the period 01.04.1999 to 17.04.2000. It is urged that the observation of learned Single Judge that appellant would be entitled to notional computation of such period alone and consequential denial of salary is not justified in view of the previous adjudication inter se between the parties. The appellant came to be selected on the post of Principal by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. He was posted in the institution concerned where he took charge. It was on the count of an interim protection obtained by the senior most lecturer of the institution that appellant was not permitted to work in such institution and was later shifted to another institution, where he joined and continuously worked. However, salary for the period 01.04.1999 to 17.04.2000 was not paid on account of aforesaid dispute. 4. The appellant had earlier filed Writ Petition No.17996 of 2002 which was disposed of vide following order passed on 26.07.2007:- "....In view of the above the District inspector of Schools Saharanpur is directed to reconsider the matter of the petitioner. The petitioner will approach the District Inspector of Schools Saharanpur alongwith a certified copy of this judgement who will look into the matter, consider the chronology of the events, which took place from 16.2.1999 to 17.12.2000, see the record end pass appropriate order for payment of salary to the petitioner. The Court has already taken note of the fact that the petitioner was not dismissed, removed or retrenched from the services, employee-employer relation continued and he is entitled for the salary. This exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the District Inspector of schools Saharanpur. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of." 5. It is admitted that the orders passed by learned Single Judge on 26.07.2007 has attained finality. The question is that whether denial of actual salary for such period would be justified in view of the prior adjudication inter se between the parties made on 26.07.2007. 6. It is undisputed that the appellant was validly appointed and was placed in the institution concerned. In the previous round of litigation definite finding has been returned by the learned Single Judge that appellant was always available to discharge his work and it was on account of reasons beyond his control that he was actually not allowed to. A further finding is returned with treating this period, the employer-employee relationship continued and the appellant is entitled for salary. Once this finding is returned by the learned Single Judge in the previous round of litigation which has attained finality, it would not be proper to deny salary to the appellant for such period. Merely claim in respect of notional benefits would not do justice between the parties. 7. In that view of the matter, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. 8. Judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2024 is modified by providing that the appellant shall also be entitled to actual payment of salary for the period 01.04.1999 to 17.04.2000. Such payment shall be released within a period of 2 months from today failing which the appellant shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 S.A. Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad