ORDER : On Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2022 1. There is a delay of 50 days in filing this appeal. 2. Heard learned Counsel for parties. 3. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. Cause shown is sufficient. Delaying in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The application is allowed. On Appeal 5. The State of U.P. through the Secretary, Basic Education and three other officers of the Department of Basic Education have preferred this appeal from the judgment and order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ -A No. 18523 of 2021. 6. By the judgment and order impugned, the writ petition preferred by respondent no. 2 (for short, 'the writ petitioner') has been allowed. The learned Judge quashed the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya, declining various remunerative entitlements of the writ petitioner, an Assistant Teacher with an aided and recognized institution. The learned Single Judge has further issued a mandamus, ordering the appellants here, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition, to ensure payment to the writ petitioner of his bonus, increment from 22.12.1997, selection grade from 2007, arrears of salary from 22.12.1997 to 22.12.2002 of the untrained grade along with interest @ 7.5% p.a., within eight weeks of the judgment. It has further been ordered that any delay in payment would entitle the writ petitioner simple interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount due. 7. The writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Untrained) under the Dying-in-Harness Rules on 27.10.1997 at the Pandit Nehru Madhyamik Vidyalay, Bhararipur, Auraiya. The aforesaid school shall hereinafter be called 'the institution'. The institution is duly recognized and receives Government grant-in-aid. The District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya, by an order dated 30.05.1998, terminated the services of the writ petitioner, without following the procedure prescribed. The said order was set aside by the Joint Director of Education (Basic), Kanpur Region, Kanpur vide order dated 09.11.1998. Despite the writ petitioner's termination order being set aside, the institution did not permit him to join. The writ petitioner instituted Writ Petition No. 43219 of 1998, wherein an interim order was passed in his favour. The Headmaster of the institution challenged the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 09.11.1998 vide Writ Petition No. 49586 of 1999. Despite the writ petitioner's termination order being set aside, the institution did not permit him to join. The writ petitioner instituted Writ Petition No. 43219 of 1998, wherein an interim order was passed in his favour. The Headmaster of the institution challenged the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 09.11.1998 vide Writ Petition No. 49586 of 1999. Both the writ petitions were connected and heard together. By a judgment and order dated 13.09.2004, the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner was allowed, whereas that instituted by the Headmaster was dismissed. The order of the Joint Director of Education was, therefore, upheld and the writ petitioner held entitled to reinstatement. 8. The Headmaster of the institution carried a Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2004 passed in the two writ petitions last mentioned, which was dismissed. The orders of this Court as well as the Joint Director of Education were not complied with. This led the writ petitioner to bring contempt proceedings. The writ petitioner was permitted to join, but never granted the benefits of trained grade and other benefits. He then instituted Writ -A No. 67145 of 2006, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2010, directing the respondents to grant trained grade to the writ petitioner. The order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge last mentioned was challenged in Special Appeal. That appeal is still said to be pending. 9. In the next chapter of troubles for the writ petitioner, the Headmaster of the institution suspended him. The order of suspension was challenged before this Court, which was stayed. The writ petitioner's services were then terminated by the institution, but the order of termination was disapproved by the District Basic Education Officer by his order dated 05.03.2019. The writ petitioner was allowed to work. The writ petitioner represented his case for the grant of various emoluments i.e. bonus, increments, arrears of salary etc., but nothing came out of it all. 10. The writ petitioner then instituted Writ - A No. 7674 of 2021, which was disposed of vide an order dated 02.08.2021, directing the District Basic Education Officer to examine the writ petitioner's case. In compliance with the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya has rejected the writ petitioner's claim to bonus, increments and arrears of salary from 22.12.1997 to 22.12.2002 in the untrained grade. In compliance with the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya has rejected the writ petitioner's claim to bonus, increments and arrears of salary from 22.12.1997 to 22.12.2002 in the untrained grade. 11. Disillusioned by the order dated 22.10.2021, the Writ Petition, giving rise to this Appeal, was instituted. After exchange of affidavits, the Writ Petition was heard and allowed by the learned Single Judge in terms of the order hereinabove indicated. 12. The State and its Officers, who were respondents to the Writ Petition, have preferred the present Appeal, aggrieved by the learned Single Judge's judgment. 13. Heard Mr. A.K. Ray, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel in support of the Appeal and Mr. Y.K. Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in answer. 14. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for parties and perusal of record, including the judgment and order impugned, what we find is that the writ petitioner has been denied various monetary benefits, including bonus, increments from 22.12.1997, selection grade from 2007 and arrears of salary from 22.12.1997 to 22.12.2002 in the untrained grade by the District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya vide order dated 22.10.2021, citing his intermittent service record and the breaks in it as the reason. The District Basic Education Officer has held the writ petitioner's service not to be continuous but oft interrupted. 15. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner is not to be blamed for the apparent breaks in his service. It is by no means the writ petitioner’s conduct or action that has led to the various interruptions in service. Rather, the various breaks, that appear in his service record, are the result of deliberate and apparently mala fide interruption caused by the institution themselves, who seemed to have been bent upon throwing out the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner is an appointee under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, and as rightly remarked by the learned Single Judge, a dying-in-harness appointment is always a substantive appointment. The writ petitioner has been repeatedly deprived of his service, driving him to approach this Court, wherein the writ petitioner's stand has always been found vindicated. Though the writ petitioner was placed under suspension, there is nothing on record to show that he has ever been held guilty on any charge of misconduct. The writ petitioner has been repeatedly deprived of his service, driving him to approach this Court, wherein the writ petitioner's stand has always been found vindicated. Though the writ petitioner was placed under suspension, there is nothing on record to show that he has ever been held guilty on any charge of misconduct. What figures as some kind of a discontinuity in the writ petitioner's service is solely of the respondents own making, and particularly, of the institution. 16. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge, who has remarked that the Committee of Management were out to harass the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has also said that the proceedings against him were mala fide, drawn with the purpose of dispensing with the writ petitioner's services. We have already said that and we cannot but agree with the conclusions of the learned Single Judge on the issue of mala fides. To this, we must add that the appellants, who are State Authorities, are also not free from blame. If at all there were any vigilance on their part about the manner in which the institution was acting determinedly to get rid of the writ petitioner, they had ample powers to set the wrong, right, which they did not do. Instead, now that the writ petitioner has been granted his due relief by the learned Single Judge, the State respondents have chosen to appeal the judgment on grounds that are specious. 17. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 18. This appeal is dismissed.