Irshad Ali, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for respondent - State.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11.04.2005 contained as Annexure-4 to the writ petition with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay salary to the petitioner uptill now.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Guest Speaker and posting order was issued on 29.09.2001. The petitioner was posted at Government Industrial Training Institute (for short, 'ITI'), Chandan Chowki, Lakhimpur.
4. The petitioner along with others filed Writ Petition No.1975 (S/S) of 2002, wherein direction was issued that petitioners will be allowed to work till regularly selected candidate comes and joins. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner along with other petitioners was allowed to join on 11.11.2002.
5. One Shailendra Singh was working as Guest Speaker in ITI, was attached in Chandan Chowki on the post of petitioner and the petitioner was not given any posting anywhere and remained at Chandan Chowki. He made representation that he may be paid salary and illegal attachment of Shailendra Singh be set aside. When no order was passed, he filed Writ Petition No.947 (S/S) of 2004, wherein this Court issued direction to opposite party No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner.
6. Vide impugned order dated 11.04.2005, representation of the petitioner has been rejected holding that after 30.06.2002, the petitioner was not performing his duties, therefore, there is no justification to pay arrears of dues to the petitioner and representation of the petitioner was, accordingly, disposed of, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once in Writ Petition No.1975 (S/S) of 2002; Pradeep Sinha and others Vs. State of U.P. and others interim protection was granted to the petitioner to continue to work on the post till regularly selected candidate comes and joins, there is no justification upon the respondents to treat the petitioner that he was not working after 30.06.2002.
8. His next submission is that the action of the respondents in disposing the representation of the petitioner holding that he was not working is contemptuous in nature for which he is liable to be punished by this Court. His last submission is that the impugned order is per se illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
9. On the other hand, learned ACSC submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is a just and valid order. The writ petition devoids of merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
10. I have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
11. On perusal of the order dated 30.06.2002, it is apparent that in the meantime, the benefit of interim order dated 27.09.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.4562 (S/S) of 2002 was made available to the writ petition filed by the petitioner along with 10 others and it was permitted to work as Guest Speaker untill regularly selected instructor comes and joins. Meaning thereby, there was no justification to hold in the decision taken while deciding the representation that the petitioner is not working since 10.06.2002.
12. Once there was an order of this Court to permit the petitioner to continue on the post, the finding returned in the impugned order dated 11.04.2005 is contemptuous and erroneous in nature. In pursuance to an interim order granted on 30.10.2002, the petitioner was permitted to continue till regularly selected Instructor comes and joins, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to permit the petitioner to work in the institution.
13. The recital in the impugned order that the petitioner is not working since 30.06.2002 is not acceptable in the eyes of law.
14. In view of above, the impugned order dated 11.04.2005 is hereby set-aside.
