# C/M Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College & Anr v. Shambhu Rao & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 894
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-18
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 656 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Swarupama Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-dr-rajendra-prasad-inter-college-anr-v-shambhu-rao-ors-52943
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
discussion contained in the order of the
trial court and expressing the agreement
therewith, nothing more has been done.
Such
orders
cannot
stand
judicial
scrutiny."

31. All the aforesaid judgments deal
with the parameters of exercise of powers
under Section 319 CrPC but were not
discussed in the subsequent judgment in case
of Sandeep Kumar (supra) in the light
whereof, this Court, while allowing the
revision filed by opposite party no. 2, had
remitted the matter to the Sessions Court.
Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
dismissing the SLP had clarified that the
impugned judgment and the dismissal of
SLP would not be treated as
an
expression of opinion on the merits of the
case, including the alleged role of the
petitioners (applicants), in the opinion of
this Court, all questions of fact and law
would be open to be raised by the
applicants before the Sessions Court
pursuant to the remand made by the High
Court and, therefore, making cursory
reference to the cross examination of
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, without even
indicating as to what they had stated
about role of the applicants, allowing
application under Section 319 CrPC, does
not appear to be justified.

32. In view of the above discussion,
this Court finds it to be a fit case where the
matter has to be reconsidered by the Sessions
Court after taking into consideration the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in
SLP (Criminal) No. 10780 of 2024, entire
material
on
record,
including
crossexamination
of
witnesses
significance
whereof has been emphasized by the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
the
above-referred
decisions.
33. Accordingly, the revision is
allowed. The order dated 17.08.2024
referred to in second paragraph of this
order, stands set aside.

34. The Sessions Court concerned
(other than the Presiding Officer who had
passed the order dated 17.08.2024 if he is still
posted in the said Sessions Division) is
directed to pass a fresh order in accordance
with law on already moved applications that
are on record and in the light of observations
made in this order, after hearing the
applicants, opposite party no. 2 as well as
State on or before 31.03.2026, provided a
certified/self attested downloaded copy of
this order is filed before the Court concerned
in 1st week of January, 2026.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 894
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 656 of 2023
Alongwith
Special Appeal Defective No. 927 of 2025

C/M Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College &
Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Shambhu Rao & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of the impugned order dated
24.05.2022, withdrawing the approval of the
petitioner's
appointment
after
his
superannuation on 31.03.2022 and its effect on
retiral benefits.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Post of Assistant
Teacher
-
Appointment
-
Approval
granted
and
salary
was
paid
upto
12 All. C/M Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College & Anr. Vs. Shambhu Rao & Ors.
895
retirement on 31.03.2022 - During the
course, salary was directed to be stopped
by
District
Basic
Shiksha
Adhikari
(D.B.S.A.)
on
a
complaint
dated
27.11.2020
made
regarding
the
educational certificate, which was stayed
by the High Court in writ petition -
Thereafter, the D.B.S.A., after calling
record from committee of management,
passed
the
impugned
order
dated
24.05.2022 withdrawing the approval of
the petitioner's appointment - Validity
challenged. (E-1)
Held : Once an employee has superannuated,
the employer retains no authority to reopen or
unsettle the validity of the appointment, except
in cases involving fraud or misrepresentation as
in our considered view contract of employment
ends with retirement of employee and then
employer and employee relationship ends - The
issue relating to educational qualification, if at
all, was required to be examined at the time of
initial appointment or approval. Reopening the
same after a lapse of about 33 years,
particularly after the petitioner's retirement, is
ex-facie arbitrary, unreasonable and cannot be
justified
as
per
established
principles
of
certainty and finality in administrative action -
The withdrawal of approval at such a belated
stage is illegal and consequently the petitioner is
entitled to all consequential benefits flowing
from the subsisting approval of his appointment,
including retiral dues in accordance with law.
[Paras 14, 15 and 17]

Case Law Cited
M.S. Mudhol And Anr. vs S.D. Halegkar And Ors.
(1993) 3 SCC 591; The State of Andhra Pradesh
and
Another
Vs
Smt
Dinavahi
Lakshmi
Kameswari, 2021 INSC 68 - referred to.

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972; Uttar
Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries
of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978.

List of Keywords
Approval to the appointment; Stoppage of
salary pending enquiry; Retirement; Withdrawal
of approval; Educational qualification; Arbitrary;
Commission
of
fraud;
Misrepresentation;
Superannuation;
Contract
of
employment;
employer and employee relationship; Manifest
arbitrariness.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 20.12.2022 allowing
the writ petition filed by the respondent against
the order of withdrawal of approval of his
appointment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant : Grijesh Tiwari
Advs. for the Respondents : K. K. Rao,
Standing Counsel

(Delivered by Hon'ble Swarupama
Chaturvedi, J.)

Order
on
Civil
Misc.
Delay
Condonation Applications.

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners.

2. Cause shown for delay in filing the
appeals is sufficient.

3. Delay in filing the appeals is
condoned.

3. Delay condonation application is
allowed.

Order on Appeal

1. Heard Sri K. K. Rao, learned
counsel for the appellant, Sri Grijesh
Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the
State respondents.

2. The appellant in Special Appeal
Defective No.927 of 2025 has approached
this Court against the impugned order dated
25.08.2025 in Writ A No.1018 of 2025
whereby the learned Single Judge has
simply directed to put up the case after the
decision of the Special Appeal Defective
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.656 of 2023 filed by the Committee of
Management. In connected appeal, which is
Special Appeal Defective No.656 of 2023,
the appellant has challenged the judgment
and order dated 20.12.2022 in Writ A
No.10356 of 2022 wherein the petition
filed by the petitioner Shambhu Rao was
allowed with all consequential benefits.

3. The controversy involved in
both special appeals arises out of the same
set of facts and relates to the inter se rights
of the parties concerning the judgment
rendered in Writ A No.10356 of 2022.
Since the impugned order dated 25.08.2025
passed in Writ A No.1018 of 2025 is
wholly dependent upon the outcome of
Special Appeal Defective No.656 of 2023,
and both appeals involve overlapping
issues of law and fact, we consider it
appropriate to hear them together and
decide by a common order. Since the main
challenge is to the order passed by the
learned Single Judge allowing the writ
petition of Shambhu Rao and the second
appeal arises out of an order passed by
learned Single Judge deferring the matter
of interest and payment of retirement dues
to Shambhu Rao, we take Special Appeal
Defective No.- 656 of 2023 as leading
appeal.

4. The facts giving rise to these
special appeals are that the school was
initially established as a Junior High
School, catering to classes VI to VIII, and
recognized under the Uttar Pradesh Basic
Education Act, 1972, which falls within the
ambit of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High
School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers
and Other Employees) Act, 1978. Pursuant
to an order dated 13.11.1986 issued by the
Assistant
Director,
Basic
Education,
Seventh Region, Gorakhpur, three posts of
Assistant Teacher were created at the
Junior High School level, against which
Shambhu Rao along with two more
persons, got selected for the appointment.
While the appointments of Ram Naresh
Tripathi as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade)
and Deen Bandhu Rao as Assistant
Teacher, Urdu (Untrained Trade), were
duly approved by the District Basic
Education Officer, the appointment of the
Shambhu Rao was deferred on the ground
that his B.Ed. degree from Maithili
University, Darbhanga, Bihar, was not
recognized.

5. Subsequently, Shambhu Rao
obtained diploma of Vyayam Ratna,
equivalent to D.P.Ed., recognized by the
Government order dated 18.11.1982, from
Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir,
Vyayam
College,
Jhansi,
in
1988,
following which, Shambhu Rao was
appointed to a vacant post of Assistant
Teacher. The Manager of the Committee of
Management
forwarded
the
relevant
records to the District Basic Education
Officer, Deoria, by letter dated 02.03.1989,
and the appointment was approved on
03.03.1989. Accordingly, the Manager of
the Committee of Management issued the
appointment order to Shambhu Rao, who
joined the post and received the salary
admissible to an Assistant Teacher until his
retirement on 31.03.2022 upon attaining the
age of superannuation.

6. Meanwhile, on 23.12.2020, the
District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Kushinagar,
issued
a
notice
to
the
Manager/Principal of the institution calling
upon them to submit duly verified copies of
the educational certificates of the Shambhu
Rao. The said notice was issued in
compliance with the direction of the
District Magistrate, Kushinagar, contained
in the order dated 05.12.2020, whereby
12 All. C/M Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College & Anr. Vs. Shambhu Rao & Ors.
897
verification
of
the
Shambhu
Rao?s
educational qualifications was ordered on
the basis of a complaint dated 27.11.2020
made by one Rajesh Kumar Singh.

7. Thereafter, by order dated
01.03.2021, the District Basic Education
Officer, Kushinagar, directed stoppage of
the petitioner?s salary pending enquiry on
the allegation that the petitioner?s B.Ed.
certificate was forged. Aggrieved thereby,
Shambhu Rao challenged the said order by
filing Writ-A No.10319 of 2021, wherein
this Court, by order dated 09.09.2021,
stayed the operation of the impugned order
in that petition and directed payment of
salary to the petitioner and during the
pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner
attained the age of superannuation and
retired from service on 31.03.2022.

8. Pursuant to the order dated
09.09.2021, the District Basic Education
Officer, Kushinagar, issued a notice to the
Manager of the institution calling upon him
to produce the original records relating to
the appointment of the petitioner. Upon
consideration of the response of the
Management, the District Basic Education
Officer, Kushinagar, passed the order dated
24.05.2022, whereby the earlier approval
order dated 03.03.1989 was withdrawn,
which forms the subject matter of challenge
in the Writ-A No. 10356 of 2022 filed
before this Court and the same got allowed
in favour of Shambhu Rao. Order passed
by this Court in Writ-A No. 10356 of 2022
is under challenge by the management in
the connected special appeal.

9. Learned counsel appearing for
the appellant in the lead special appeal
submits that despite repeated reminders for
compliance
of
the
judgment
dated
20.12.2022 passed in Writ-A No.10356 of
2022, the respondent authorities failed to
release
the
petitioner?s
retiral
dues,
including pension and G.P.F., compelling
him to file Contempt Application No.8825
of 2023, consequently Rs. 29,30,443/- was
paid to the petitioner in May, 2025,
afterwards the contempt application was
disposed of.

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant further submits that it is matter of
fact that the petitioner had superannuated
on 31.03.2022 and the retiral benefits were
released belatedly on 22.04.2025 and
15.05.2025,
therefore,
the
petitioner
claimed interest at the rate of 10% per
annum on the delayed payment of G.P.F. as
well as on arrears of pension and salary
amounting to Rs. 21,90,776/- and Rs.
2,14,048/- respectively, and accordingly
filed Writ-A No.10108 of 2025, however,
by the impugned order dated 25.08.2025,
the learned Single Judge adjourned the
matter with observation that the Special
Appeal No.656 of 2023 filed by the
Committee of Management was pending
while granting liberty to the petitioner to
approach the Court after disposal of the
special appeal filed by the management.

11.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
contend that Shambhu Rao had already
superannuated
on
31.03.2022
and,
therefore, the impugned order withdrawing
the approval of his appointment, having
been passed after his retirement, is per se
illegal and without application of mind. He
further contends that the issue relating to
the petitioner?s educational qualification
was required to be examined, if at all, at the
time of his initial appointment, and
reopening the same after an inordinate and
unexplained delay of about 33 years is
wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
Learned counsel further argued that the
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Kushinagar,
proceeded
to
pass
the
impugned order on the premise that neither
B.Ed. nor D.P.Ed. was the requisite
qualification at the relevant time.

12. Per contra, learned Counsel
representing the State Respondents and
learned counsel for the management have
tried to justify the action taken by
authorities while contending that the
Shambhu Rao did not possess the requisite
qualification to hold the post and as such
there is no error as illegality in the order
which was impugned in the writ petition
filed by Shambhu Rao. Learned counsel
appearing for the management contends
that the learned single has also erred in law
in allowing the writ petition vide impugned
judgment and order dated 20.12.2020 and
failed to appreciate this fact that the
educational
authorities
including
the
appellant was having the liberty to proceed
against the respondent no.1 even after his
retirement as his appointment was found to
be the illegal and the respondent no. 1 has
found to have been involved in commission
of a fraud in obtaining his appointment and
also because of the fact that the disciplinary
proceedings were already commenced even
prior to the retirement of the respondent no.
1 and as such there is no impediment in
taking action against the respondent no. 1
even after his retirement.

13. After thoughtful consideration
the issue to be decided in these special
appeals is that whether the impugned
order
dated
24.05.2022,
whereby
approval of the petitioner?s appointment
was withdrawn after his superannuation
on 31.03.2022, is legally sustainable, and
whether the same has any effect on retiral
benefits, which is the outcome of the
services rendered by the employee, which
the Shambhu Rao has already rendered.

14. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner got retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on
31.03.2022.
The
impugned
order
withdrawing approval of his appointment
was passed thereafter, on 24.05.2022.
Once an employee has superannuated, the
employer retains no authority to reopen
or
unsettle
the
validity
of
the
appointment, except in cases involving
fraud or misrepresentation as in our
considered view contract of employment
ends with retirement of employee and
then employer and employee relationship
ends. In the present case, there is neither
any allegation nor any finding that the
petitioner had secured approval of his
appointment by producing forged or
fabricated documents. In the absence of
such
allegation,
the
post-retirement
exercise undertaken by the District Basic
Education Officer is clearly without
authority of law.

15. It is also matter of fact that
Shambhu Rao?s appointment was duly
approved on 03.03.1989 and remained
operative for more than three decades,
during which period Shambhu Rao
continuously discharged his duties and
was paid salary from the State exchequer.
The
issue
relating
to
educational
qualification, if at all, was required to be
examined
at
the
time
of
initial
appointment or approval. Reopening the
same after a lapse of about 33 years,
particularly
after
the
petitioner?s
retirement,
is
ex-facie
arbitrary,
unreasonable and cannot be justified as
per established principles of certainty and
finality in administrative action.
12 All. C/M Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College & Anr. Vs. Shambhu Rao & Ors.
899
16. The submission made by
learned counsel for the respondent-State
and the management, who is appellant in
connected special appeal, that neither B.Ed.
nor D.P.Ed. was the requisite qualification
at the relevant time does not improve their
case, inasmuch as the approval order was
consciously granted by the competent
authority and was never questioned for
decades. Administrative authorities cannot
be permitted to undo settled rights after
decades of actual service provided by an
employee, more so when the employee has
got retired.

17. As per legal principles, the
order
dated
24.05.2022
demonstrates
manifest arbitrariness and cannot be
sustained in law and therefore the order
granting relief to the Shambhu Rao in writ
petition is justified. The withdrawal of
approval at such a belated stage is illegal
and consequently the petitioner is entitled
to all consequential benefits flowing from
the subsisting approval of his appointment,
including retiral dues in accordance with
law and therefore the order of this court in
contempt application is also well justified.

18. In M.S. Mudhol And Anr. vs
S.D. Halegkar And Ors. (1993) 3 SCC
591, the issue was related to the eligibility
to occupy the post of the Principal of a
Senior Secondary School, which was raised
after years of appointment. In this case the
Supreme Court held that:

 "Whatever may be the reasons
which were responsible for the nondiscovery of the want of qualifications of
the 1st respondent for a long time, the fact
remains that the Court was moved in the
matter after a long lapse of about 9 years.
The post of the Principal in a private
school though aided, is not of such
sensitive public importance that the Court
should find itself impelled to interfere with
the appointment by a writ of quo warranto
even assuming that such a writ is
maintainable. This is particularly so when
the incumbent has been discharging his
functions continuously for over a long
period of 9 years when the court was
moved and today about 13 years have
elapsed. The infraction of the statutory rule
regarding
the
qualifications
of
the
incumbent pointed out in the present case is
also
not
that
grave
taking
into
consideration all other relevant facts. In
the circumstances, we deem it unnecessary
to go into the question as to whether a writ
of quo warranto would lie in the present
case or not, and further whether mere
laches would disentitle the petitioners to
such a writ? "

19. In The State of Andhra
Pradesh and Another Vs Smt Dinavahi
Lakshmi Kameswari, 2021 INSC 68, the
State Government clarified before Supreme
Court in the appeal that it was restricting its
challenge only to the component of interest
which had been imposed by the judgment
and order of the High Court Supreme Court
has held that:

 "14
The
direction
for
the
payment of the deferred portions of the
salaries and pensions is unexceptionable.
Salaries are due to the employees of the
State for services rendered. Salaries in
other
words
constitute
the
rightful
entitlement of the employees and are
payable in accordance with law. Likewise,
it is well settled that the payment of pension
is for years of past service rendered by the
pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence
a
matter
of
a
rightful
entitlement
recognised by the applicable rules and
regulations which govern the service of the
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employees
of
the
State.
The
State
Government
has
complied
with
the
directions of this Court for the payment of
the outstanding dues in two tranches.
Insofar as the interest is concerned, we are
of the view that the rate of 12% per annum
which has been fixed by the High Court
should be suitably scaled down. While
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
submits that the award of interest was on
account of the action of the Government
which was contrary to law, we are of the
view that the payment of interest cannot be
used as a means to penalize the State
Government. There can be no gainsaying
the fact that the Government which has
delayed the payment of salaries and
pensions should be directed to pay interest
at an appropriate rate."

20. Applying the principle laid
down by the Supreme Court in State of
Andhra Pradesh (supra) to the facts of
the present case, it is evident that Shambhu
Rao?s retiral benefits, including pension,
G.P.F., and other dues, constitute a rightful
entitlement for services rendered by him
over more than three decades. The payment
of such dues is mandated by law and the
applicable service rules and regulations.
The delay in releasing these amounts from
31.03.2022
until
22.04.2025
and
15.05.2025, despite repeated reminders and
contempt
proceedings,
clearly
caused
financial prejudice to Shambhu Rao. It is
well-settled legal principle that delays in
payment of salary or pensionary dues, must
be paid with interest at an appropriate rate
to compensate the employee for the loss
caused by such delay. Applying this
principle, Shambhu Rao is entitled to
receive interest at the rate of six percent per
annum on all delayed retiral benefits from
their respective due dates until actual
payment.
21. In view of the foregoing
discussions and consequential findings
arrived by us as above, Special Appeal
Defective No.- 656 of 2023 is hereby
dismissed.

22. Since we have upheld the
judgment of learned Single Judge challenge
in this appeal, Shambhu Rao?s appointment
and continuance in service and ultimate
retirement deserves to be awarded with all
post retirement benefits and for any delay
in disbursement of the same, also deserves
to be visited with interest which we assess
to be at the rate of 6%.

23. Accordingly, Special Appeal
Defective No.- 927 of 2025 along with writ
petition being Writ - A No.- 10356 of 2022,
the order passed therein dated 20.12.2022
was challenged, stands disposed of with
aforesaid directions.

24. All pending applications, stand
disposed of accordingly. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 900
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 1236 of 2019
Alongwith other cases

Satya Prakash Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1)
Constitutional
validity
of
issuing
advertisement for future vacancies on the