WPSS No.1551 of 2007 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Ms. Anjali Noliyal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher under the Parent Teacher Association arrangement and has been teaching since 1999. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that since September, 2004 to February, 2007 he was continuously being paid the honorarium of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. as per the Government prescribed monthly honorarium. The petitioner further contends that from 27th May, 2007 till the filing of the writ petition, the respondents had not been paid the honorarium @ Rs.7,000/- per month as per the Government Order dated 29/12/2006. The respondents in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit have stated that the petitioner has not been working and is absenting himself from 27th May, 2007. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the rejoinder affidavit. However, in paragraph 12 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is not absenting himself from service but that the answering respondents are not permitting him to join the services. The writ petition was presented before this Court on 23rd October, 2007. The petitioner is not working, admittedly, since May, 2007. This fact was concealed by the petitioner in the writ petition when he presented the writ petition in October, 2007. The relief claimed by the petitioner that the respondents be directed to pay the honorarium cannot be granted since the petitioner, admittedly, was not working in the respondents’ institution since May, 2007. The writ petition is patently misconceived and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 12.04.2010 Shiv