Allahabad High Court
Smt. Satyawati Saxena vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 1 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:153676
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 924 of 2019
Smt. Satyawati Saxena
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate, Siddharth Khare
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the District Inspector of Schools-II, Moradabad (Annexure 11 to the writ petition). (ii) A writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith sanction and disburse pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court and to continue the regular payment of monthly pension as and when it falls due.
(iii) A writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to sanction and disburse the arrears of salary of the petitioner from August 2017 till March 2018 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Consequent to retirement of one Smt. Mithlesh Kumari Saxena, the respondents- institution has notified the said vacancy. After subjected to the selection process, the petitioner was appointed to the said post. When the respondents did not release payment of salaries to the petitioner, he constrained to file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37085 of 1997 for issuance of the writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to take work from the petitioner and pay salaries. Considering the merits of the case, this Court issued interim directions on 17.11.1997 which reads as follows:
"The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 3 and 6 prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter. List if for admission in the week commencing 26.1.1998.
Petitioner is directed to serve the respondent no. 04 and 5 personally also by registered post who may also file counter affidavit within the same period.
In view of the statement made in the writ petition that the petitioner appointment has already been approved the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue an pay salary provided no order of termination or suspension has already been passed."
4. Subsequently, the said writ petition was considered and dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2016 with the following observations:
"In view of the settled position of law, this Court finds that petitioner is not entitled to any benefit, in view of the judgment delivered in Suresh Chandra (supra), particularly after amendment made vide U.P. Act No.1 of 1993. The mere fact that petitioner has continued to work and receive salary under the interim orders of this Court, would not entitle the petitioner to any relief, as the same is impermissible in law."
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the intra-court appeal i.e. Special Appeal No.400 of 2016 and vide order dated 14.06.2016, the division Bench of this Court has stayed operation of the order dated 27.05.2016 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37085 of 1997.
6. Admittedly, as per interim directions issued by this Court on 17.11.1997, the respondents have released salaries to the petitioner and he was continuously working in the said post. While things stood thus, in view of the amendment made to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and his services were regularized vide order dated 26.11.2016. Taking such facts into consideration, basing on the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Special Appeal was dismissed as infructuous on 14.07.2017. When the respondents did not release post retiremental benefits to the petitioner after his retirement, the petitioner constrained to file Writ-A No.16446 of 2018 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 01.08.2018 with directions to the respondents to decide representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Consequent to the said directions, the respondent considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner.
7. Consequently, the respondents stopped payment of salaries and finally, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2018. Despite the fact that the petitioner's services were regularized consequent to the amendment made to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, the respondents did not release post retiremental benefits. Hence, this petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Special Appeal has nothing to do with services of the petitioner as the respondents did not release payment of salaries, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37085 of 1997 for release of salaries and also based on record, this Court has issued interim directions on 17.11.1997, the respondents have released salaries to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner has continued in service. The said order was stayed by the division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 14.06.2016. As earlier litigation only pertaining to the payment of salaries is nothing to do with regularization of the petitioner's services. Accordingly, in view of the amendment made to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, as the petitioner is eligible and entitle for regularization, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and regularized his services vide order dated 26.11.2016. Hence, services of the petitioner have been regularized. The question of entitlement of payment of salaries to the petitioner would not arise. In view of the said circumstances, based on the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Special Appeal was dismissed as infructuous and not on merits.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that once regularization order was passed, the respondents ought not to have stopped payment of salaries without cancelling regularization order made on 26.11.2016. In fact, Special Appeal was dismissed as infructuous based on the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into merits of the case. When that being position, the respondents cannot reject the claim of the petitioner for payment of salaries from August, 2017 to 31.03.2018 and other post retiremental benefits.
10. Reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents has made his submissions based on the counter affidavit. In fact, in the counter affidavit, the respondents have reiterated the facts and have also admitted that services of the petitioner have been regularized in view of the amendment made to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, on 22.03.2016. Accordingly, as the petitioner was eligible and entitle for regularization, his services were regularized by the Joint Director of Education, Mordabad Region Moradabad vide order dated 26.11.2016. Though after the petitioner's services were regularized but in view of order passed in Special Appeal No.400 of 2016, the payment of salaries has been stopped and post retiremental benefits were also withheld.
11. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it reveals that in fact, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner for regularization as per amended provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, the said regularization is absolute as it was not interdicted by any authority or any Court. In those circumstances, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner for post retiremental benefits. The authorities have also considered that earlier litigation was launched with regard to payment of salaries. As regularization has been done, the authorities ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner for release of salaries and post retiremental benefits on the ground of dismissal of the Special Appeal as infructuous, which was not dismissed on merits. Once Special Appeal was not dismissed on merits, the authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioner as directed by this Court in Writ A No.16446 of 2018 and based on regularization order passed in favour of the petitioner on 26.11.2016, pass appropriate orders for releasing monetary benefits.
12. With the above said observations, the present writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order, directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders sanctioning payment of salaries to the petitioner from August, 2017 to 31.03.2018 and post retiremental benefits. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
(Donadi Ramesh,J.)
September 1, 2025
rkg
