Kameshwar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 371 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kameshwar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 May, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69267
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6936 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Kameshwar Pandey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kumar Pandey,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. This Court has passed following order on 07.05.2024 :-

?Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 7.2.2024 passed by respondent no. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the third round of litigation as in the earlier two rounds the petitioner has preferred writ petitions before this Court, which was allowed. He submits that in Writ A No. 49314 of 2007, this Court vide order dated 20.5.2022 has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to pass a fresh order regarding the inquiry of the year 1999 mentioned in the impugned order and then pass fresh order in accordance with law within three months by showing the reason as to how the approval order dated 1.11.1990 was declared fake. He submits that impugned order has been passed without complying the specific direction of this Court.

The matter requires consideration.

The respondents are granted eight weeks' time to file counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the State should also bring on record the material whether the order passed by this Court was complied with in its letter and spirit and also annex the material on the basis of which the approval was declared fake.

Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter.

List thereafter.

Till the next date of listing, if the petitioner is working, he shall not be disturbed for discharging his duties and he shall also be paid salary on monthly basis.?

2. Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has attained age of superannuation and has recently retired.

3. Learned counsel further submits that approval order dated 01.11.1990 i.e. passed 35 years ago, cannot be disputed at this stage especially when in earlier round of litigations, every time the petitioner got success and order passed against him was set aside with a liberty for fresh consideration.

4. Learned C.S.C. has tried to convince this Court, however, could not dispute aforesaid facts.

5. In view of above, Court takes note of a judgment of Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 INSC 7 wherein in similar circumstances, a long service period was protected.

6. Considering overall circumstances, I am of the view that there is no reason to dispute approval of petitioner which was passed 35 years ago, at this stage, when petitioner has already enjoyed service and has retired.

7. It is not a case of respondents that petitioner has suffered any complaint during his service period of 3-1/2 decades, while serving as an Assistant Teacher.

8. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and its legal consequence shall follow. In case salary of petitioner was not paid, it shall be paid within a short period.

9. In case of default on part of respondents, the petitioner constrains to approach this Court again for same cause of action, an adverse order could be passed against the concerned respondents.

10. A copy of this order be supplied to Secretary, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow for compliance.

11. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations.

12. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

Sinha_N.