IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Appn. No. 1441 / 2010 Review / Recall Appn. No. 114 / 2010 In Writ Petition No. 249 of 2001 (S/S) B huwan CHandra Kandpal. ...…………. Writ Petitioner / O.P. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ...…………. Review applicants Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Breif Holder for State for the review applicants. Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for the writ petitioner / opposite party. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Delay Condonation Application No. 1441 of 2010, for condonation of delay in filing the review application. Heard, and perused the affidavit. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the review application is condoned. 2) Also, heard on review application. 3) Review applicant has sought review of order dated 29.06.2009, passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 249 of 2001 (S/S). 4) By said order dated 29.06.2009, the writ petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner shall be paid honorarium payable to the post of Shiksha Mitra only for the period from 14.03.2001 (if the same has not been paid to him), but not beyond 15.07.2008, when the interim order of this Court, was vacated. From the perusal of the order sought to be reviewed, it is clear that this Court found that the writ petitioner’s appointment as Siksha Mitra was not in accordance with law, as his name was never recommended by Village Education Committee. However, since he was working as Shiksha Mitra under the interim order dated 14.03.2001, after his appointment as Shiksha Mitra, therefore, this Court at the time of dismissal of the writ petition directed that the petitioner shall be paid honorarium from 15.03.2001, but not beyond the date when said order was vacated. The interim order dated 14.03.2001, reads as under: “Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed six weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. List after six weeks. In the meantime, it is provided that if the petitioner is not being paid honorarium, the same shall be paid to him along with arrears of the same and it shall be paid continuously in future.” Sd/- (P.C. Verma, J.) 5) This Court vide its order dated 15th of July 2008, passed following order, vacating the interim order: “This is Urgency Application No. 1543 of 2008, moved on behalf of respondent No. 4, for early hearing of writ petition No. 249 (S/S) of 2001. Sri Lalit Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents submitted that due to the interim order dated 14.03.2001, the respondents are facing contempt proceedings. In this connection, it is submitted that the stay vacation application, moved on behalf of respondent No. 2, is pending since 2001 and stay vacation application, moved on behalf of respondent No. 4, is pending since March 2004. Attention of this Court is further drawn on behalf of respondents to Para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 4, which reads as under:- “That at the outset it is submitted that the petitioner was never recommended by the committee consisting of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Magistrate, District Panchayat Officer and Account Officer, Office of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari as provided under the Govt. Order dated 26th May 1999…….It is relevant to submit here that the petitioner Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal is the son of Sri Durga Dutt Kandpal, who was the then Head Teacher posted in the Primary School, Thakla and the petitioner’s father in a most illegal manner had started taking work from the petitioner and his name was shown in the Attendance Register at the Serial No. 2 just below the name of Sri Durga Dutt Kandpal and it was mentioned that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher Shiksha Mitra. It is submitted that the objection to this effect was raised by the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari when he inspected the school on 27/10/1999. A perusal of the Attendance Register and the endorsement made thereon clearly mentioned that “Without the prior approval of the Department no Shiksha Mitra can be appointed and it was also directed not to allow the petitioner to sign the Attendance Register.” In view of the above averments, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the respondents are not liable to make the payment of honorarium to the petitioner, which they are directed to pay him vide interim order dated 14.03.2001. In view of the fact that the petitioner prima facie appears to have been appointed by his father as Shiksha Mitra without getting approval from the authorities concerned, this Court feels it just and proper to vacate the interim orders dated 14.03.2001 and 23.12.2003. The interim orders dated 14.03.2001 and 23.12.2003, are hereby vacated. List after three weeks. (The Stay Vacation Application and Urgency Application No. 1543 of 2008 stand disposed of).” Sd/- (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court does not find any error apparent on face of the record in dismissing the writ petition, and observing that the petitioner shall be paid honorarium as per the interim order dated 14.03.2001, but not beyond the date on which it was vacated. Therefore, the review application M.C.C. No. 114 of 2010 is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 18, 2010. H. Negi