Nirpati Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri Rishu Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for payment of salary for the post of Headmaster since he is performing the duties on the post of Headmaster along with consequential benefits.

¶11

It is argued that in this regard various representations have been made by the petitioner before the Respondent No.3 but till date no decision has been taken, hence the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶12

On the other hand it is argued by learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that identical controversy has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgement and order dated 30.04.2025 passed in

¶13

WRIA No. 17356 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Special Appeal No.652 of 2022 (Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board and 2 others Versus Tripurari Dubey and 3 others) . The para nos. 19 and 20 of the order dated 30.04.2025 are delineated below:

¶16

"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.

¶17

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."

¶18

The aforesaid judgment is affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex

¶19

WRIA No. 17356 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

Court in the case preferred by the State-Government being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22472 of 2025 , which was dismissed on 13.08.2025. It is further informed that pursuant to the aforesaid order, Government Order dated 14.10.2025 was also issued by the State Government for compliance of the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in the aforesaid Special Appeal.

¶22

Since the controversy involved in the present petition has already been settled by the Division Bench in the Special Appeal No.652 of 2022, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of paragraph Nos.19 & 20 of Special Appeal No.652 of 2022 as well as the Government Order dated 14.10.2025 issued by the State Government for compliance of the order dated 30.04.2025.

¶23

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶24

November 19, 2025

¶25

Swati

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nirpati Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirpati Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Similar cases

Smt. Anjali Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Muhammad Habib vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Dileep Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Abdul Raheem vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vinod Kumar and 28 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others