Rohitashva Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 7474 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4433 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Rohitashva Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Indresh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 04.10.2013 whereby his representation for payment of salary from 12.07.1992 till 12.02.2004 is rejected.

Facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Lecturer, Sociology by letter dated 08.07.1992 who joined on 12.07.1992. His approval was granted by District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.), Mathura by his order dated 23.07.1998. The same was challenged by management and D.I.O.S. was again directed to decide the matter. The D.I.O.S. by his order dated 12.11.2003 rejected the approval of petitioner. The said order was challenged before this Court and the High Court by its judgment and order dated 07.02.2007 set aside the order dated 12.11.2003 and remanded the matter to the D.I.O.S. . The D.I.O.S. by his order dated 19.07.2007 approved the payment of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 13.02.2004. It was under the interim order dated 13.02.2004 of the High Court that the salary was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 13.02.2004, and thus the same became reason for grant of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 13.02.2004. Petitioner filed Writ-A No.1744 of 2010 challenging the order dated 19.07.2007 to the extent it permitted payment of salary w.e.f. 13.02.2004. By judgment and order dated 16.07.2013, the High Court required the D.I.O.S. to decide the issue of salary to the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment till 12.02.2004. Now, by the impugned order 04.10.2013, the D.I.O.S. has rejected the representation of petitioner.

I have heard counsel for parties and with their assistance perused the record including the impugned order.

The impugned order does not provide any reason by refusing payment of earlier salary to the petitioner except that the payment is being made w.e.f. 13.02.2004, as directed by the High Court. The same cannot be a reason for refusing payment of salary from the date petitioner has joined the post. There is no dispute that the appointment of petitioner stands approved. There is nothing on record to show that the approval is from any later than his initial appointment. Once, the appointment of petitioner stands approved and there is nothing contrary on record, petitioner is entitled for payment of salary from the date of his appointment and working.

In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed.

The respondents are directed to ensure payment of salary, w.e.f. 12.07.1992 to 12.02.2004, to the petitioner along with interest @ 6%. The payment shall be made within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the D.I.O.S., Mathura.

Order Date :- 15.3.2023

Arti/-

[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]