KRIPA SHANKER SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-appellant aggrieved by an order dated 8.12.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20039 of 2000, has preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. THE short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was working as an Assistant Teacher in Central Pedalogical Institute and attained the age of superannuation on 02.01.1991. He filed writ petition No.2063 of 1991, inter alia, praying for a direction to allow him to serve as a teacher till the end of the academic session. This Court by an interim order dated 28.1.1991, allowed the petitioner- appellant to continue in service till the end of the academic session. However, by an order dated 24.7.1997, the above writ petition was dismissed. It is relevant to quote the aforesaid dismissal order, which is as follows: "Sri A.K. Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions not to proceed with the writ petition. THE writ petition is therefore dismissed as not pressed. However, there shall be no order as to costs." In view of the dismissal of writ petition, the payment made to the appellant for the period 31.1.1991 to 30.6.1991 was deducted from his gratuity. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred another Writ Petition No.34825 of 1999 before this Court, which was disposed of with the direction to decide the petitioner's representation on the question. In the light of the order of this Court, the representation of the petitioner-appellant was considered and rejected by the order dated 24.3.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the present writ petition. THE order passed therein is being impugned in the present appeal. Mr. O.P. Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant continued in service till 30.6.1991 and, therefore, he is entitled for salary of the said period. He further submits that the authorities wrongly rejected the representation of the appellant. THE submission made by Mr. Singh does not commend us. THE appellant continued in service till the end of the academic session by virtue of an interlocutory order passed by this Court and undisputedly the writ petition has ultimately been dismissed. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the interim order shall not enure to the benefit of the appellant and he shall not be entitled for the salary for the period for which he had worked by virtue of the interim order. While dismissing the writ petition, the Court has not observed that the appellant shall be entitled for the salary. We are of the opinion that the consideration of the matter by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error calling for any interference in this appeal. THE appeal stands dismissed.