ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed with the allegation that the petitioner had been appointed as a Clerk in the respondent institution on 1.1.1984, by the Committee of Management and that he joined, pursuant to it, and is continuously working ever since then. However, payment of salary was not released to the petitioner by the State after the institution was taken on aid w.e.f. 1.7.1984. A writ petition No. 18945 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner for the purpose which was disposed of by this Court on 27.9.1988, requiring the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to examine the grievance of the petitioner as raised in his representation, within a period of 2 months. It is alleged that a representation was filed but no decision was taken and as such, subsequent representations, from time to time came to be filed, which met the same fate. It is stated that a certificate was issued by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, clarifying that the petitioner has been working w.e.f. 1.1.1984 against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. Petitioner thereafter filed another writ petition No. 22548 of 1989, in which petitioner again annexed the certificate issue by the Manager/Head Master of the institution, certifying his working. An interim mandamus came to be issued by this Court in the second writ petition directing respondent to either show cause within a period of 3 weeks from the date the copy of the order is produced or decide the representation of the petitioner or pay salary. This order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 2.12.1989. It is claimed that pursuant to the directions so issued by the Division bench, an order came to be passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, on 16.2.1990, accepting the claim of the petitioner and issuing a direction to the Manager of the institution to ensure release of salary forthwith. The salary, despite such an order, was not paid to the petitioner. Subsequent representations were, thereafter, filed but as the salary was not paid, present writ petition was filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay his current salary and the arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.7.1984. Counter Affidavit has been filed in the writ petition by the respondents stating that the petitioner had never been appointed in the institution and the entire documents brought on record of the writ petition to suggest that the petitioner had been working, are manipulated, and have not been issued by the competent authority. With regard to the order dated 16.2.1990, which is stated to have been passed under the directions of this Court, a categorical stand has been taken by the respondents that this order is absolutely fake and it does not bear any dispatch number nor the office records contain any such letter. It has also been stated that the previous writ petition filed, claiming identical relief, was already pending on the date of filing of the present writ petition and as such, present writ petition is barred by Chapter -XXII Rule -7 of the Rules of the Court.
(2.) Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner reiterating his stand taken in the writ petition. So far as the allegations with regard to the genuineness of the order dated 16.2.1990 is concerned, it has been stated that the said order was issued by the office concerned and was addressed to the manger of the institution.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi and Sri Vineet Kumar Singh for the respondents.;