The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an approval granted for a post three decades ago cannot be withdrawn solely on the ground that it was not created by the competent authority. The court emphasized that an employee serving continuously for 30 years without any allegations of fraud or misconduct cannot be denied salary on such a procedural ground.
The case involved Madarsa Jamia Alia Arabia Alinagar, Mau, a non-government aided minority institution run by Jamila Alia Arabia, Mau. The institution, registered in 1982, has been imparting education at various levels and operates under the U.P. Non-Government Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition Rules, 1987, later amended in 2016.
Background of the Case
In 1990, the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) forwarded a list approving 27 teaching and non-teaching staff positions at the Madarsa, ensuring their salaries were paid. Due to an increase in student numbers, additional teaching positions were recommended and approved in 1996.
The petitioner, Shafique Ahmad, had been working as an Assistant Teacher Tahtania since 1988. He began receiving his salary from the State Exchequer in 1995 after the post was sanctioned. In 2021, following the retirement of a teacher, Ahmad was promoted to Assistant Teacher Fauquania, with the required financial approvals granted in September 2021.
Legal Dispute and Court Proceedings
Despite the approval, both Ahmad and his successor were not paid salaries, leading to legal action. A writ petition was filed, and the High Court directed the authorities to make a final decision within three months. However, in response to a contempt proceeding, the U.P. Madarsa Education Board revoked the financial approval, citing that the original post was not sanctioned by the competent authority.
This led to further legal challenges, culminating in a High Court ruling on March 11, 2025.
Justice Prakash Padia, while delivering the judgment, stated:
"For the last 30 years, there was no dispute or any allegation that the petitioner was paid salary against a non-sanctioned post. If any issue existed, the competent authority should have raised it in 1996 when financial approval was initially granted. The petitioner was continuously paid and served without any fault."
The court noted that no fraud or malpractice had been alleged against Ahmad or the institution. The only issue raised was the lack of prior permission from the State Government when the post was created. The court ruled that Ahmad should not suffer due to procedural lapses beyond his control.
The High Court relied on previous Supreme Court judgments, particularly:
Shivanandan C.T. & Others vs. High Court of Kerala & Others – The Supreme Court held that judicial officers who had been in service for 10 years could not be removed merely due to procedural irregularities in their selection.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Warns State Authorities Against Unlawful Land Acquisition, Mandates Compensation
Radhey Shyam Yadav & Another vs. State of U.P. & Others – The Supreme Court ruled that once an appointment had been upheld and salaries were paid for decades, withdrawing approval would be prejudicial and unjust.
"It would be a travesty of justice to deny relief to an employee who has served for over 30 years without any proven wrongdoing. The procedural lapse, if any, was at the administration’s end and should not impact the petitioner."
The Allahabad High Court quashed the order withdrawing financial approval and directed that Ahmad is entitled to all consequential benefits.
Case Title: Shafique Ahmad v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6586 of 2024]
