HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13369 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Shri Harshit Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The contention of learned Standing Counsel is that under the influence of the Manager, the petitioner was constrained to submit her resignation on 18.02.1994; but however, the same was withdrawn subsequently on 19.02.1994. However, when the same was not being accepted and she was not permitted to join, she approached this court by way of filing a writ petition being Service Single No. 2775 of 1994 (Meena Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.); however subsequently vide order dated 01.09.2017, the said writ petition was consigned to record by observing that two incumbents working on the post have agreed that the salary be divided equally amongst them and there is no dispute between them to that extent. However, the perusal of the order dated 01.09.2017 also indicates that no further relief was granted by this Court, while passing the order dated 01.09.2017. 3. Now again, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction that the admissible salary to the petitioner for the period from 01.01.1994 to 15.05.2007 i.e. till her date of retirement, may be Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Srivastava, Harshit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Meena Agarwal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) paid to her along with the pensionary benefits. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel that the claim has been raised in a highly belated manner and as far as the salary is concerned, the petitioner had a remedy to proceed by way of filing a contempt against the order dated 01.09.2017; but for the reason best known to her, she did not avail the said remedy. Certain claim also is said to have been raised for the first time i.e. with respect to the leave encashment and to pay the salary of various period towards the sanctioned medical leave, which is still lying unpaid in school record. However, this Court finds that as far as the claim of the salary is concerned, the same was the subject matter of Service Single No. 2775 of 1994 (Meena Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.); and accordingly the present writ petition cannot be entertained being the second writ petition for the same relief. 5. However, the perusal of the order dated 01.09.2017, indicates that the petitioner had worked on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Institution in question and as such, in case she is entitled to pension, the same is required to be accorded consideration; as this Court has held that grant of pension is a continuing cause of action; and similarly the salary for the period of sanctioned medical leave. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in case petitioner moves a representation regarding her claim for the pensionary benefits, as well as the salary for the period for which leave was sanctioned, the same shall be decided in accordance with law, after scrutinizing her service records. 7. In view of the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending; and accordingly by the consent of the parties, the same is being disposed off at the admission stage with the direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned Respondent Authorities WRIA No. 13369 of 2026 2 within a period of one week from today; and in the event such an application is filed within the stipulated period, the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with the application. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed off. September 8, 2026 Sumit K. WRIA No. 13369 of 2026 3 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad