Allahabad High Court
Pravin Kumar And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 July, 2025
Author: Y. K. Srivastava
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:104978
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8702 of 2025
Petitioner :- Pravin Kumar And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Man Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivendra Singh Bhadauria
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Man Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Meva Lal Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Shivendra Singh Bhadauria, learned counsel counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent-authorities to pay salary to the petitioners of the post of Head Master of Basic School for the period they worked as In-charge Head Master in the said schools. The particulars with regard to the working of the petitioners as In-charge Head Masters, have been stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition.
Attention of the Court has been drawn to a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 30.04.2025 rendered in Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024 (Secretary, UP Basic Education Board and 2 others vs. Tripurari Dubey and three others) and connected Bunch of Special Appeals, to contend that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered in terms of the said judgment. In particular, the following paragraphs of the judgment are referred.
"16. Those of the assistant teachers who are allowed to discharge the work of headmaster discharge various administrative and supervisory duties in addition to the post of assistant teacher. Such teachers when are allowed to discharge additional work would be entitled to payment of salary. Though in somewhat different factual scenario, a Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh (supra) has observed as under:
"If no power is to be construed to exist in a management to make an officiating appointment, when a vacancy arises in the office of a principal until a regular appointment is made in accordance with the provisions of the Commission Act, serious prejudice would have been caused in the functioning of educational institutions including affiliated colleges. There is a vital element of public interest in the proper functioning of educational institutions and if the cause of education is not to suffer, some arrangement would have to be made during the period when there is a vacancy in the office of a principal. The power to make an officiating appointment is traceable to the provisions of the Statutes of the State Universities, analogous to Statute 10-B of the First Statutes. Once the nature of that power is construed as a power to make an appointment albeit on an officiating basis till a regularly selected candidate becomes available, there would be no justification to deny a claim for the payment of salary to such a person who has been appointed on an officiating basis. The power to make an officiating appointment under the Statutes of the University after the deletion of Section 16 from the Commission Act with effect from 22 November 1991 is preserved. Such a provision in the Statutes would not be inconsistent with or contrary to the Commission Act so as to attract the overriding provisions contained in Section 30. Where a person has been appointed as an officiating principal until a regularly selected candidate takes charge, this involves an assumption of duties and responsibilities of a greater importance than those attaching to the post of a teacher. The Universities Act in several provisions, which have been noted earlier, adverts to the duties and responsibilities which are required to be performed by a principal. Hence, a person who is appointed as an officiating principal under the Statutes of the University until a regularly selected candidate is made available, would be entitled to the payment of salary attached to the post of principal."
17. We are thus of the view that headmaster's salary ought not be denied to the assistant teachers when they are regularly performing the work on the higher post of headmasters for the last several years.
18. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the direction of learned Single Judge to pay salary for the post of headmasters since 2014 is otherwise impermissible inasmuch as no grievance was earlier raised by the writ petitioners with regard to denial of salary for the higher post and the writ petitions have been filed only in the year 2022 to 2024. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India and others Versus Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 to contend that at best a direction for arrears up to a period of three years could have been issued in favour of the writ petitioners. The judgment in Tarsen Singh (supra) has been followed in subsequent judgment of Supreme Court in Bichitrananda Behera Versus State of Orissa and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1307. A Lucknow Bench of this Court in Urmila Devi Pal Versus State of U.P. and others, [2023(6) ADJ (DB)(LB)] also followed the similar judgment.
19. We find substance in the contention of Sri K. Shahi that the direction to pay arrears could not have been issued in a mechanical manner particularly when no grievance was raised by such persons earlier. Though it is stated that previous representations were made by the writ petitioners but such grievance apparently was not pressed till filing of the writ we are thus of the view that even if the petitioners have continued for long as headmaster the direction to pay the arrears could only extend up to three years prior to filing of the writ petition.
20. In view of the discussions and deliberations held above this bunch of special appeal stands disposed of with following observation: (i) we grant liberty to the concerned District Basic Education Officer to examine and determine the factual issue as to whether the petitioner has experience of five years and has actually been continuing as headmaster of the institution; (ii) if the petitioners have continued for long as headmaster the direction to pay the arrears would only extend up to three years prior to filing of the writ petition; (iii) we also make it open for the District Basic Education Officer to ensure at the district level that only senior assistant teachers are allowed to officiate in the educational institution, as far as, it is possible. This would eliminate possibility of heart burning on account of junior assistant teachers functioning as officiating headmaster; (iv) requisite exercise in this regard shall be undertaken within a period of two months and the amount in term of above determination shall be calculated and released without any further loss of time."
(emphasis added)
It is contended that the Division Bench having held that the Assistant Teachers, when they are regularly performing the work on the higher post of Head Masters, would be entitled to the salary admissible to Head Master, the petitioners are also entitled for a direction in the same terms.
Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent have not disputed the fact that the Division Bench judgment dated 30.04.2025 rendered in Special Appeal No.652 of 2024 (Secretary, UP Basic Education Board and 2 others vs. Tripurari Dubey and three others) would squarely cover the controversy involved in the present case.
Learned counsel for the respondents have fairly submitted that the present writ petition be disposed of in terms of the observations made in paragraph 20 of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the special appeal.
Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph 20 of the judgment rendered in Special Appeal No.652 of 2024 (Secretary, UP Basic Education Board and 2 others vs. Tripurari Dubey and three others).
Order Date :- 4.7.2025/Imroz
(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.)
