Baikunth Nath Pandey and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12790 of 2018 Petitioner :- Baikunth Nath Pandey And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Dwivedi,H.K Asthana,Prabhakar Awasthi,Satyendra Nath Tripathi,Shashi Kant Mishra,Shreyas Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Ajitam Srivastav,C.S.C.,Chandra Sekhar Pandey Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶1Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶2Present writ petition is filed questioning the orders dated

17.11.2017, 30.03.2011 and 17.03.2011 with consequential direction to the respondents to ensure payment of current salary regularly month by month and arrears of salary to the petitioners, in accordance with law from the date of joining to the post of assistant teachers in the institution.

¶3The petitioners have been appointed on various dates from 1996 to 2000. Vide order dated 16.12.2009, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners for salary on the ground that there are only four sanctioned posts and denied the salary to the petitioners. Hence, they have approached this Court by filing Writ A No. 1237 of 2010, which was disposed of with the following directions: "It appears that there is an institution, which is recognized and affiliated with the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Viswavidhyalaya, Varanasi. It appears that petitioners were appointed as teachers and the papers were sent for the purposes of payment of salary, but the respondent has rejected the claim by order dated 16.09.2008 disapproving the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary on the ground that as the appointment of the petitioners have been made on non sanctioned post, therefore, approval for payment of salary cannot be granted. Petitioners submit that the petitioners' appointment was made after following proper procedure. The petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court being a writ petition No.51883 of 2008, which was finally disposed of vide order dated 24.08.2009 quashing the order and directing the competent authority to take a proper decision regarding payment of salary as well as to consider the question regarding sanction of post. It appears that the authority has not taken decision. Then a contempt petition was filed, that was also finally disposed of on 26.11.2009. Now the order impugned has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners for the purposes of payment of salary on the ground that as in the institution in question, only four posts are sanctioned and the petitioners appointment and working is on a non sanctioned post, therefore, salary cannot be permitted to be paid to the petitioners on a non sanctioned post in an institution. Leaned counsel for the petitioners has brought on record the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition, i.e. writ petition No.51883 of 2008, in which the District Inspector of Schools himself has admitted this fact in paragraph Ka that there are 12 sanctioned post in the said institution. Further the petitioners by means of the rejoinder affidavit Annexure No.1 dated

24.03.1972 has brought on record the order of the competent authority, which sows that in the institution of the petitioners, there are 12 sanctioned post. But in the counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition does not say anything regarding sanction of 12 post, only an averment has been made that there are only four sanctioned post in the institution. Petitioners have placed reliance upon letter of the Inspector of Sanskrit Pathsala dated 14.04.2008, which also states that there are 12 sanctioned post in clause-3, which is at page 77 of the writ petition. Further submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed in clear defiance of the order passed in the earlier writ petition because a direction was given in the earlier writ petition to the District Inspector of Schools that the letter of the Joint Director of Education dated 14.04.2008 addressed to respondent No.3 clearly shows that there are 12 sanctioned post of teachers in the institution. Further direction was given that if there is any doubt in the mind of the respondent No.3, he can have a clarification to that effect from the Joint Director of Eduction,who was respondent No.3. But the respondent No.3 without taking into consideration all these documents and the letter of the Joint Director of Education has passed the order impugned rejecting the claim of the petitioners only on the ground that there are only four sanctioned post. The respondent No.3 has not taken into consideration the sanctioned letter dated

24.03.1972 as well as admission made in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that order impugned is liable to be quashed. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel isnot able to support the order impugned in view of the facts of admission of the D.I.O.S. in earlier writ petitioner as well as the order dated 24.03.1972, which clearly states that there are 12 sanctioned post in the institution. I have considered the submission of the parties and perused the record. In my opinion once there is an admission by the District Inspector of Schools in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition and further there is an order of the competent authority sanctioning 12 posts in the institution, then the District Inspector of Schools have got no jurisdiction to pass such order rejecting the claim on the ground that the petitioners' appointment in on a non sanctioned post. There may be other ground regarding validity and genuineness of the appointment of the petitioners, but the payment of salary to the petitioners cannot be refused only on the ground that the petitioners' appointment has been made on a non sanctioned post, when there is a clear document dated 24.03.1972 as well as the admission itself of the respondent No.3 in the earlier writ petition. Further in the earlier writ petition, a specific direction was given by this Court that in case of any doubt, District Inspector of Schools respondent No.3 was obliged to have a quarry from the Joint Director of Education, but instead of making any quarry as directed by this Court, the order impugned has been passed. From perusal of the order impugned, it is also clear that the reasons mentioned in the order impugned does not any where mentioned that 12 posts are not sanctioned. The only reason has been given that as regards the sanction of 12 posts, the position is not clear. Form the order impugned, it is also clear that before making the appointment on 16.01.1996, the prior permission for making ad-hoc appointment has been given. It appears that the respondent No.3 himself was not confident regarding giving a specific finding that where there was 12 sanctioned post or 4 sanctioned post. But in view of the various documents and admission, respondent No.3 had no option except to pass the order for the purposes of payment of salary to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this writ petition is allowed, the order impugned dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure No.14 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 is hereby quashed and respondent No.3 is directed to take an appropriate decision regarding payment of salary of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. No order as to costs."

¶4Consequent upon the said directions, initially the salary of Rs. 1,61,960/- has been released, but the same was not paid to the petitioners. For non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court dated 17.8.2010, the petitioners have invoked the provisions of the Contempt Act in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5498 of 2010. Pursuant to the same, respondents have passed the present impugned order on 17.11.2017, which reads as under: "शीeवेदeवेदांगeसंसकृ तeमहाववदालयeनवलीeतोरवांeचनदौलीeके eतथाकजथतeसहायकeअधयापकोeसवरeशीeववजय कु मारeअवसथी,eवगररजाeशंकरeशीवासतव,eवृहसपवतeवतपाठी,eरघुवरeदयालeशीवासतव,eवैकु णडeनाथeपाणडेय पंकजeशीवासतवeआवदeदाराeवेतनeभुगतानeके eसंबंधeममeउनके eपतयावेदनeवदनांकe14-12-2013eएवंeवदनांक 21-7-e2014eदाराeवकयेeगयेeअनुरोधeकाeमखु यeअंशeवनमनवत्eहःै - "eनयायवहतeमेeशीमानeवश+ाeवनदेशकe(माधयवमक)eउ्रeपदेशeकीeओरeसेeशीमानeउपeवश+ाeवनदेशकe(संसकृ त) वश+ाe वनदेशालयeउ०eप०eइलाहाबादeके e हसता+रeसेe वनगरतeप.त/आदेश-पतांकeसामानय e(2) eववसतार e/ 2137/2010-11eवदनांकe30-03-2011eकोeवापसe/eवनरसतeकरतेeहहएeहमeपाथ?गणeववजयeकमारeअवसथीु (सहायकeअधयापकeसावहतय)eबृहसपवतeवतपाठीe(सहायकeअधयापकeसावहतय),eवैकु णडeनाथeपाणडेयe(सहायक अधयापक-eवयाकरण)eवगररजाeशंकरeशीवासतवe(सहायकeअधयापक-आधुवनकeववषय)eरघुवरeदयालeशीवासतव (सहायक,eअधयापकeआधुवनकeववषय)eएवंeपंकजeशीवासतवe(सहायक,eअधयापकeआधुवनकeववषय)eके eवेतन भुगतानeके eसंबंधeमeम शीमानeवश+ाeवनदेशकe(माधयवमक)eउ्रeपदेशeकीeओरeसेeततकालीनeउपeवश+ाeवनदेशक (संसकृ त)eवश+ाeवनदेशालयeउ०eप०eइलाहाबादeदाराeजारीeआदेश/पतeपतांकe/eसामानयe(2)eववसतारeअनुभागe/ 1927/2007-08eवदनाकe28-01-2008eकोeयथावतeरखतेeहहएeशीमानeजजलाeववदालयeवनरी+कeचनदौलीeको समसतeबकायेeसवहतeअववलमबeवेतनeभुगतानeकरनेeहेतुeआवेवशतeकरनेeकीeकृ पाeकर।े " 2-यातीeगणeके eपतयावेदनोeपरeआखयाeवनमनवत्eहै:- शीeवेदeवेदांगeसंसकृ तeमहाववदालयeनवली,eतोरवा,eचनदौली,eसमपूणारननद,eसंसकृ तeववशवववदालयeवाराणसी दाराeमानयताeपापeराजयानुदावनतeसंसकृ तeववदालयeह।ै eउकeववदालयeहेतुeउ०eप०eशासनeके eपतांकeसंखया- 1/3e(1)e/72-eवश+ाe(3)eवदनांकe24eमाचर,e1972eदाराe12eपदeसृजजतeवकयाeगयाeहeै तथाeउपeवश+ाeवनदेशक पंचमeमणडलeवाराणसीeके eपतांकe/eसंसकतe/eवनयवकe/eअधयादेशe/e12075/78-79eवदनांकe5-9-1978eदाराृ ु भीe12eपदeसवीकृ तeपदानeकीeगयीeह।ै महाववदालयeमeम उकeसृजजतeपदोeके eपवतeररकe08eपदोeहेतुeततकालीनeपबंधeतंतeदाराeवदनांकe22-01-1996 कोeववजापनeवनकालeकरeवदनांकe22-2-1996eकोeशीeवाचसपवतeवतवारी,eशीeअरववनदeकु मारeपाणडेयeएवंeशी वैकु णडनाथeपाणडेयeकोeसहायकeअधयापकeवयाकरणeहेतुeचयनeवकयाeगयाeतथाe22-2-e1996eकोeशीeरघुवर दयालeशीवासतवeएवंeशीeवगररजाeशंकरeशीवासतवeकोeआधुवनकeववषयeहेतुeचयनeवकयाeगया।eववदालयeपबनध तंतeदाराeशीeवाचसपवतeवतवारी,eशीeवगररजाशंकरeशीवासतवeएवंeशीeरघुवरeदयालeशीवासतवeकोeववदालयeममe3-3-1996eकोeएवंeशीeबैकु णठनाथeपाणडेयeएवंeशीeअरववनदeकु मारeपाणडेयeकोeवदनांकe5-3-1996eममeववदालयeमम रकायभारeगहणeकरनाeवदखायाeगयाeह।ै पुनःववदालयeपबनधतंतeदाराeअपनेeववजापनeवदनांकe22-1-1996eके eकमeमeम हीeअपनेeपसतावeवदनांकe20-9-2000eदाराeवदनांकe24e9-2000eके eववजापनeके eमाधयमeसेeशेषe03eपदोeहेतुeवदनांकe8-10-2000eको सा+ातकारeकीeवतजथeवनधार रतeकरतेeहहएeअपनेeपबनधeसवमवतeकीeबैठकeवदनांकe28-9-2000eके eमधयांनeसेeभी शीeववजयeकु मारeअवसथीeएवंeशीeवृहसपवतeवतवारीeकोeसावहतयकeववषयeहेतुeतथाeशीeपंकजeशीवासतवeको आधुवनकeववषयeहेतुeचयवनतeकरeजलयाeगया,eजजसके eपवतeइनeतीनोeअधयापकोeकोeवदनांकe11-10-2000eसे ववदालयeमeम कायरभारeगहणeकरनाeपबंनधतंतeदाराeबतायाeगयाeह।ै eउकeनवeवनयकु e08eअधयापकोeकोeवेतन शासकीयeखातोeसेeनeहोनेeपरeउकeअधयापकोeदाराeमाननीयeउचचeनयायालयeमeम यावचकाeसंखयाe2290e/ 2008eयोजजतeकरeदीeगयी,eजजसमेeमाननीयeउचचeनयायालयeनेeवदनांकe11-1-2008eकोeयावचकाeअबनतमeरप सेeवनसताररतeकरतेeहहएeआदेशeपाररतeवकयाeथा। 3-eमाननीयeउचचeनयायालयeदाराeपाररतeउकeआदेशeके eअनुपालनeममeततकालीनeजजलाeववदालयeवनरी+कeके पतांकe/e33440-52/2008-09eवदनांकe16-9-2008eदाराeपकरणeकीeसुनवाईeकरतेeहहएeअपनेeसमी+ातमक वनणरयeमeम इनeसभीe08eवनयवु कयोeकोeअवनयवमतeएवeअवैधावनकeमानयeकरतेeहहएeवेतनeभुगतानeशासकीयeखाते सेeअमानयeकरeवदयाeगयाe। उकe पतांक e वदनांक e16-9-2008 eके e ववरदe याचीगणोe दाराe माननीय e उचच e नयायालय eमeम यावचका 51883/2008eयोजजतeकीeगयी,eजजसममeनयायालय,eइलाहाबादeनेeवदनांकe24-8-2009eकोeयावचकाeअबनतम रपeसेeवनसताररतeकरतेeहहएeउकeवनणरयeवदनांकe16-9-2008eकोeवनरसतeकरeवदयाeतथाeपकरणeहेतुeजजला ववदालयeवनरी+क,चनदौलीeहेतुeआदेशeपाररतeवकया। 4-eमाननीयeउचचeनयायालयeदाराeपाररतeआदेशeवदनाक e24-8-2009eके eअनुपालनeममeततकालीनeजजला ववदालयeवनरी+क,eचनदौलीeदाराeपकरणeकीeपुनःeसुनवायीeकीeगयीeएवंeअपनेeसमी+ाeमeम उ्ेखeवकयाeवक कजथतeरपeसेeररकeपदeकाeववजापनeवदनांकe21-1-1996eकोeवकयाeगयाeहeै तथाe05eअभयजथरयोeकीeवनयवु क रवदनांकe28-02-1996eकोeतथाe03eअभयजथयोeकीeवनयवु कeवदनांकe9-10-e2000eकोeवकयाeगयाeहै,eजोeवक सवरथाeअवनयवमतeऔरeपूणरeरपेणeसंवदगधeकायरवाहीeहeै तथाeअवैधावनकeतथाeशासनादेशeके eववपरीतeहोनेeके कारणeवेतनeभुगतानeसमबबनधतeमाएगeकोeअसवीकारeकरतेeहहएeपृ०eसं०e/eसंसकृ तe/e4100-12/2009-10 वदनांकe16-12-2009eदाराeपके रणeवनसताररतeवकयाeगयाeह।ै 5-उकeवनणरयeवदनांकe16-12-2009eके eववरदeपुनःeयाचीगणो,eदाराeमाननीयeउचचeनयायालय,eइलाहाबादeमम यावचकाeसंखया-e1270/2010eयोजजतeकीeगयीeजजसमेeमाननीयeउचचeनयायालयeनेeअपनेeवनणरयeवदनांकe17-8-2010eदाराeपूवरeवनणरयeवदनांकe16-12-2009eकोeखाररजeकरतेeहहएeपुनःeपवतवादीeनमबर-3eजजलाeववदालय वनरी+कeचनदौलीeकोeयाचीगणोeके eवेतनeभुगतानeके eसमबनधeमeम वनणरयeलेनेeहेतeु आदेशeपाररतeवकया।

मदननशयउचचनयदयदलय,

इलदहदबददददरदपदररतउकवनणरयवदनददक17-8-2010

कवसमबनधममततकदलशन

थजलदववददलयवनरशककचनददलशकवसमकयदचशगणतददरदपतयदववदनपसतकतनहशवकयदगयदतथदमदननशय

उचचनयदयदलयममअवमदननदवददसदखयद-5498/2010

करवदयदगयद।इसअवमदननदवददमवसकनवदईकव

पशचदततवदनददक17-8-2010

कवकममवथजलदववददलयवनरशकक,

चनददलशकवपतददक3943-48/2010-11

वदनददक3-3-2011

ददरदमदननशयउचचनयदयदलयममयतथजतसपवशलअपशलममपदररतहतनववदलववनणरयकव

अधशनयदचशगणककतववतनभकगतदनककअनकमवतपददनककगयश।

ततकदलशनथजलदववददलयवनरशकक,

चनददलशददरदअपनववनणरयवदनददक3-3-2011

कव कममम र0161960,00

मदतकदअनकददनउकअधयदपकतहवतकसदयक ववतनववतरणखदतवममअनतररतकरदयदगयद थद। 06-

उपरतककवपशचदतवनदवशदलयकवपतददक/ 2137/2010-11

वदनददक30-3-2011

ददरदइसआशयकद पत/

वनदरशजदरशहहआवकमदननशयउचचनयदयदलयममयतथजतयदवचकदसदखयद-2290/2008

ममपदररतआदवश

वदनददक11-1-2008

कवसमददरममततकदलशनउपवशकदवनदवशक, (सदसककत)

एवदसमपवतपधदनदचदयररदजककय

इणटरकदलवज,

कमवटशरदमपकरददरदवनगरतपतददकसदमदनय(2)

ववसतदर/ 1927/2007-08

वदनददक28-1-2008

कपटरदवचतएवदफजरहव। 07-

उपरतकवसतकनसथवतसवअवमदननदवददमममदननशयउचचनयदयदलय,

इलदहदबददकतअवगतकरदयदगयद

एवदमदननशयउचचनयदयदलय,

इलदहदबददनवअपनवआदवशवदनददक21-7-2011

ममवनदवशदलयकवपतवदनददक 28-1-2008

कतसहशसदवबतकरनवकदभदरयदचशगणतपरडदलतवहहएअवमदननदवददखदररजकरवदयद।

यदचशगणतददरदयतथजतअवमदननदवदबवदनददक21-7-2011

कवखदररजहतनवकवउपरदनतयदचशगणतकदववतन

उनकव खदतवमवसथदनदनतररतनहशकरदयदगयदएवदसदयक ववतनववतरणखदतवममसथदनदनतररतरपयव 161960,00

मदतककधनरदवशकतववददलयममपपवरसवकदयरतवशककतकवववतनमदचर, 2011

दवयअपवल, 2011

एवदमई, 2011

कववनयवमतववतनममसमदयतथजतकरवदयदगयद। 08-

उपयकरकववणरतनसथवतममयदचशगणकवपतयदववदनवदनददक14-12-2013

एवदवदनददक21-7-2014 बलहशन

हतनवकवकदरणएतदददरदअसवशकदरकरतवहहएवनसतदररतवकयवजदतवहव।"

¶5Assailing the said order, present writ petition has been filed.

¶6When the facts are not in dispute as the petitioners have been appointed and continuously working in sixth respondent institution, the authorities have stopped the payment of salaries and when the said action is being assailed before this Court, this Court after considering the counter affidavit filed by the respondents disposed of the writ petition discussing all the facts. In fact, the said writ petition was allowed directing the District Inspector of Schools to take appropriate decision regarding payment of salary to the petitioners within a period of six weeks. But surprisingly instead of releasing salaries to the petitioners, the respondent-authorities have taken a u-turn and passed the impugned orders only on the assertions that the letter of the Director dated 28.01.2008 is forged and fake. The said order is contrary to the statements made by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed in Writ A No. 51883 of 2008.

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioners further brought of the notice of the Court about the extracts made by the co-ordinate Bench in the said writ petition, wherein the District Inspector of Schools has categorically admitted the fact that there are 12 sanctioned posts in the said institution and by way of rejoinder affidavit, petitioners have also brought to the notice of the Court that the institution has 12 sanctioned posts. Further, the said writ petition was disposed of by taking the letter of Joint Director of Education dated 14.4.2008. The said writ petition was disposed of based on the record available as on the date with the specific direction to the respondents to release salary to the petitioners, but surprisingly the respondents now passed the impugned order making an assertion that the letter dated 28.01.2008 is forged and fake as the same is contrary to the record and the earlier writ petition was disposed of based on the assertions made in the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit, now the respondents are estopped to take contrary view.

¶8Replying to the said submissions, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents has relied on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on 20.04.2019. Paragraph 41 of the counter affidavit, reads as below: "41. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 83 of the writ petition it is submitted that in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated

15.3.2011, the respondent no.5 again examined the records and file, in which it has been found that as per advertisement dated 21.1.1996, the documents relating to appointment of five candidates were produced on 28.2.1996 and the documents relating to appointment of three candidates were produced on

9.10.2000 and no document relating to selection has been placed. No information regarding the expert nominated for selection has been placed. They have also not produced any document that the University has issued approval/disapproval letter regarding payment of salary or not. The alleged appointments were not found in accordance with the Statute 11.15 to 11.32 of the Statute 1987 of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. It is further stated that in view of the judgment and order dated 21.2.1995 passed by this Hon'ble Court in writ petition no. 38219/1992 (Swami Nath Mishra Vs. Director of Higher Education and others), the ban has been imposed in making appointment in the Sanskrit Vidyalaya affiliated with Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya with reference to the U.P. Higher Education Commission by the committee of management, the respondent no.5 has filed that the aforesaid appointments are illegal and irregular and passed the order dated 17.3.2011 and cancelled the earlier order dated 3.3.2011."

¶9According to the said assertions, the appointments which were made on 28.02.1996 are contrary to the ban imposed by the State, hence, the said appointments are contrary to the observations made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 38219 of 1992, Swami Nath Mishra Vs. Director of Higher Education and others, when the appointment itself is illegal, the petitioners are not entitled to grant any relief.

¶10Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of the record, it transpires that the controversy continuing since 2009 and when the petitioners have approached this Court in the earlier writ petition, which was disposed of by taking all the facts into consideration, more specifically as submitted by the petitioners, the admissions made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in Writ A No. 51887 of 2008. Further, as per the letter of the District Inspector of Schools to the Joint Director of Education dated 14.04.2008, the Court has set aside the orders passed on 16.12.2009 and directed the respondents to take a decision for release of salary to the petitioners. In fact, on perusal of the above judgment, the matter was remitted to the authorities to release the payment by taking a decision, but surprisingly the respondents once again decided the issue by taking other irrelevant materials, which were not filed before this Court while deciding the Writ A No. 1237 of 2010.

¶11Apart from that as the respondents again took one more view in the counter affidavit at paragraph 41 to refute the said statement, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the ratio decided by the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. 1978 (1) SCC 405. Relevant portion of the said judgment, is as under: "The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji. "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."

¶12Following the ratio decided in the above-said judgment, the respondents are restrained to take different/contrary stand, which were not there in the impugned order.

¶13On perusal of the orders passed by this Court in Writ A No. 1237 of 2010, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioners on flimsy grounds stating that the letter dated

28.01.2008 is forged and fake as the respondents have not placed anything on record to prove that letter is forged or fake and have not initiated any criminal or civil action against anyone.

¶14In view of such circumstances, the observations made in the impugned orders are without any basis and record. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. It is needless to say that in view of the orders passed by this Court in Writ A No. 1237 of 2010 dated

17.8.2010, the respondent authorities are directed to release salary to the petitioners, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶15The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad