Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11177 (ALL)

DINANATH VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 ORS.

WRIA/20666/2015 · 2026-09-28

Manju Rani Chauhan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 20666 of 2015 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. List revised. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3 to press this case. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Brijesh Narayan, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the records. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct respondent nos. 3 to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of honorarium to the post of Shiksha Mitra in Primary School, Muradipur, Block - Harraiya, District - Basti from 27.11.2007 to 31.08.2012 when respondent no.3 had taken continuous work from the petitioner for implementing State schemes, along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Shiksha Mitra pursuant to Government Order dated 02.05.2006. When he was not given preference as required, Writ-A No. 6949 of 2007 (Dinanath Verma vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed, which was disposed of with a direction to the concerned District Magistrate to pass a reasoned and speaking order after perusing the record and giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate, Basti passed order dated 04.08.2007 directing for appointment of the petitioner at Prathmik Vidyalaya, Muradipur, Vikas Khand Kshetra- Harraiya, District Basti as Shiksha Mitra. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner joined on 23.10.2007. Subsequently, Writ- A No.55457 of 2007 was filed by one Avnish Singh challenging the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gyan Prakash Verma, Kshetresh Chandra Shukla, Madhup Narain Shukla, Prem Prakash Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent(s) : Awadhesh Kumar, C.S.C. Dinanath Verma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. .....Respondent(s) appointment of the petitioner, who was impleaded as respondent no.5 in the aforesaid writ petition. On 14.11.2007, the operation and effect of the order dated 04.08.2007 i.e. order appointing the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra, was stayed in the aforesaid writ petition. Thereafter, on 20.07.2012, the aforesaid writ petition filed by Avnish Singh was dismissed for want of prosecution. After the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved an application dated 27.07.2012 before the District Magistrate along with the order dated 20.07.2012 passed in Writ-A No.55457 of 2007. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was permitted to join as Shiksha Mitra and he has worked upto 31.08.2012. However, his honorarium from 27.11.2007 to 31.08.2012 has not been paid to the petitioner. Accordingly, a representation was made before respondent no.3 for payment of honorarium for the said period. When nothing was done, the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a direction may be issued to respondent no.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of honorarium to the post of Shiksha Mitra from 27.11.2007 to 31.08.2012 within a stipulated period. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that this writ petition has been filed with an unexplained delay of about eight years and, therefore, cannot be entertained. No record has been annexed to show that the petitioner has worked for the said period, as after the passing of the interim order dated 14.11.2007 in Writ-A No.55457 of 2007, whereby the order dated 04.08.2007 appointing the petitioner, was stayed, there was no question of his working from 14.11.2007 till dismissal of the aforesaid petition, i.e. 20.07.2012. The aforesaid fact that the petitioner has not worked for the said period is admitted in his own application dated 12.08.2013 placed at page 38 of the writ petition. He further submits that as the petitioner has not worked for the said period, he is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Therefore, no interference is required. In view of the above, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 29, 2026 Jitendra/- WRIA No. 20666 of 2015 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad