Disposed¶17

Sudhir Kumar and 111 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2025WRIA/10132/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Officiating charge of Headmaster without corresponding salary; consideration of claim directed per Division Bench judgment in Tripurari Dubey (Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024, 2025:AHC:67382-DB; SLP(C) No. 22427 of 2025 dismissed by order dated 13.08.2025); WRIT - A No. 10132 of 2025, Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Abdul Moin, J., decided September 3, 2025; six-week compliance timeline; U.P. Basic Education Department.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 4 to consider the petitioners' claim for being given salary to the post of Headmaster (In charge) in accordance with law, the relevant rules and the Division Bench judgment in Tripurari Dubey, within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶17

Sudhir Kumar and 111 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who have been given officiating charge of the post of Headmaster but are not being paid the salary of that post, should have their claim considered in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tripurari Dubey.

¶13

Court's answer

With the consent of counsel, considering the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no. 4 to consider the claim of the petitioners for being given the salary of the Headmaster (in-charge) post.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The consideration of the petitioners' claim is to be in accordance with law, the relevant rules, and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tripurari Dubey.

¶20

Key takeaways

The consideration directed is to be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 10132 of 2025 (Sudhir Kumar and 111 others v. State of U.P. and others) — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 4; decided by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J. on September 3, 2025. The petitioners were given officiating charge of the post of Headmaster but were not being paid the salary of that post. Relying on the Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024 (Secretary, UP Basic Education Board and Ors v. Tripurari Dubey and Ors, 2025: AHC:67382-DB) — affirmed upon dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22427 of 2025 by order dated 13.08.2025 — and with the contesting respondents not disputing the question of law therein decided, the writ petition (finally decided with consent) was disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 4 to consider the petitioners' claim for Headmaster (In charge) salary in accordance with law, the relevant rules and the Tripurari Dubey judgment, within six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 10132 of 2025

¶3

Sudhir Kumar And 111 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Amit Mishra,	Dinesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 4

¶10

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.K.Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2, Sri Gaurav Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Abhay Kumar Dixit, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 & 5.

¶12

With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶13

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been given the officiating charge of the post of Headmaster yet are not being paid salary of the said post.

¶14

Contention is that this aspect of the matter has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of appeals leading being Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024 Inre; Secretary, UP Basic Education Board and Ors Vs. Tripurari Dubey and Ors- 2025: AHC:67382-DB which judgment in turn has been affirmed with the dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal vide order dated 13.08.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22427 of 2025.

¶15

Further contention is that the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Tripurari Dubey (supra) .

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents do not dispute the aforesaid question of law as decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tripurari Dubey (supra).

¶17

Considering the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 4 to consider the claim of the petitioners for being given the

¶18

WRIA No. 10132 of 2025

¶19

¶20

salary to the post of Headmaster- In charge in accordance with law and the relevant rules as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Tripurari Dubey (supra) which consideration would be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶21

September 3, 2025 Pachhere/-

¶22

(Abdul Moin,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sudhir Kumar and 111 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar and 111 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Edu. (Basic ) Lko. and 4 Others

Pradeep Kumar Shukla Vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited Lko. Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director and 3 Others

Ashish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Education Deptt. Lko andORS.

Dr. Ranjeev Kumar Sahu Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Higher Edu. Ministry Human Resource Development, and 3 Others

Sunita Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. and Another

Mahendra Bahadur Singh Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others