- (1.) R. K. Agrawal, J. Petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Teacher in Bapu Intermediate College, Kopaganj, district Mau on 1st July, 1995. Consequent upon requisition of agricultural subjects in said school, he joined on 2nd July, 1993. The appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 7th July, 1994, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The said appointment was made under the provisions of Section 7-AA of the U. P. Education Act, 1921. However, by granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools, subsequently mentioned that the approval is not being granted under provisions of the Payment of Salaries Act and management will make payment of the salary to the petitioner from its own sources. Subsequently, a post of Assistant Teacher in the said grade fell vacant on 1st July, 1995. The petitioner has been absorbed on the said post. When he was not paid salary, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition No. 8490 of 1996, which was disposed of by an order dated 12-3-1996 with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Mau to decide the representation made by the petitioner within three months.
(2.) PURSUANT to the direction issued by this Court, the District Inspector of Schools, vide his order dated - 23-3-1999 has decided the representation made by the petitioner. He found that the petitioner was appointed to teach the agricultural subjects without putting any financial liability on 2nd June, 1993, which was approved by the District Inspector of Schools and he continued since then. A post of teacher in L. T. grade is fallen vacant on 1st July, 1995 and therefore, he is entitled for the payment of salary. The only ground on which the payment of salary has not been made is that at present there is ban of ad- hoc appointment by the State Government. I have heard Shri B. K. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Counter affidavit has been filed by Munni Lai on behalf of Respondent No. 1. In para 3 of the counter affidavit, the only ground taken for not paying salary is that there is ban by the State Government on ad- hoc appointment. This Court in case of Mukesh Kumar v. State of U. P. and others reported in 1996 (2) U. P. L. B. E. C. 783, held that there is no ban imposed on ad-hoc appointment. The only ground taken by the District Inspector of Schools at this stage cannot be sustained and further, there being no other ground for withholding the salary of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for his salary. 5. The writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed. .;