Disposed¶5

Suraj Kumar Yadav and 240 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2025WRIA/18106/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Officiating Headmaster Headmistress salary; consequential benefits; 241 petitioners; U.P. Basic Education Board; District Basic Education Officer; five years experience; arrears limited to three years; Special Appeal No.652 of 2022; Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board Versus Tripurari Dubey; SLP(C) No.22472 of 2025 dismissed 13.08.2025; Government Order 14.10.2025; WRIT - A No. 18106 of 2025; Prakash Padia J.; Allahabad High Court; disposed 02.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of paragraph Nos.19 & 20 of Special Appeal No.652 of 2022 and the Government Order dated 14.10.2025, i.e., payment of salary for the post of Headmasters/Headmistress with consequential benefits, with the factual determination and three-year arrears limitation as per the incorporated directions. ¶5

Suraj Kumar Yadav and 240 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (241 in number), who are performing the duties on the post of Headmasters/Headmistress, are entitled to payment of salary for that post along with consequential benefits.

¶2

Court's answer

Since the controversy involved in the present petition has already been settled by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.652 of 2022 (as affirmed by the Apex Court and implemented through the Government Order dated 14.10.2025), the present petition is disposed of in terms of paragraph Nos.19 & 20 of that judgment as well as the Government Order dated 14.10.2025.

¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law / U.P. Basic Education - 241 petitioners performing duties of Headmasters/Headmistresses claimed salary of that post with consequential benefits. The controversy was identical to one settled by the Division Bench order dated 30.04.2025 in Special Appeal No.652 of 2022 (Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board and 2 others Versus Tripurari Dubey and 3 others), whose paragraphs 19 and 20 direct the District Basic Education Officer to examine experience of five years and actual continuance as headmaster, cap payment of arrears at three years prior to filing of the writ petition, ensure senior assistant teachers officiate where possible, and complete the exercise within two months. That judgment was affirmed by the Apex Court (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22472 of 2025 dismissed on 13.08.2025) and a Government Order dated 14.10.2025 was issued for compliance. Holding the controversy settled, the Single Judge (Prakash Padia, J.) disposed of the writ petition in terms of paragraphs 19 & 20 of the Special Appeal and the Government Order dated 14.10.2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 18106 of 2025

¶3

Suraj Kumar Yadav And 240 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 4 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Bipin Bihari Pandey, C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 2

¶8

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners who are 241 in numbers for payment of salary for the post of Headmasters/Headmistress since they are performing the duties on the post of Headmasters/Headmistress along with consequential benefits.

¶11

It is argued by learned counsel for the 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 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:

¶12

"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.

¶13

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

¶14

WRIA No. 18106 of 2025

¶15

¶16

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."

¶17

The aforesaid judgment is affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶20

December 2, 2025

¶21

saqlain

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Kumar Yadav and 240 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar Yadav and 240 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

M/S. Onkar Gun House vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lalta Prasad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Harvindra Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others

Abhishek Mishra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Pushpa Singh vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Dhaneshwar Prasad Singh and 31 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others