Disposed¶16

Rajendra Prasad Yadav and 35 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2026WRIA/1204/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Officiating charge Headmaster salary; Headmaster-in-charge pay fixation; UP Basic Education Department; Tripurari Dubey; Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024; 2025:AHC:67382-DB; SLP (C) No. 22427 of 2025 dismissed 13.08.2025; WRIT - A No. 1204 of 2026; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; Rajendra Prasad Yadav and 35 others; direction to respondent no. 3; consideration within six weeks; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioners' claim for salary of the post of Headmaster-in-charge in accordance with law, the relevant rules and the Division Bench judgment in Tripurari Dubey (supra), within six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶16

Rajendra Prasad Yadav and 35 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

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, are entitled to such salary. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners for being given salary to the post of Headmaster-in-charge.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

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

¶19

Key takeaways

The consideration directed is to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WRIT - A No. 1204 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; decided February 4, 2026) - Officiating charge as Headmaster - non-payment of salary of the post. Thirty-six petitioners contended they were given officiating charge of the post of Headmaster yet were not being paid the salary of that post. The court noted the aspect had already been considered by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024 (Secretary, UP Basic Education Board and Ors Vs. Tripurari Dubey and Ors), 2025:AHC:67382-DB, which judgment was affirmed by dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22427 of 2025 vide order dated 13.08.2025. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents did not dispute the question of law decided in Tripurari Dubey (supra). With consent of counsel the petition was finally decided and disposed of, directing respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioners' claim for salary to the post of Headmaster-in-charge 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. - 1204 of 2026

¶3

Rajendra Prasad Yadav And 35 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko. And 7 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s) .	: Ram Krishna Pratap Singh .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Kumar Ayush, Ran Vijay Singh, Ravi Prakash Yadav, Uday Veer Singh

¶8

Court No. - 18

¶9

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard Mr. Ram Krishna Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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 .

¶14

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

¶15

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) .

¶16

Considering the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners for being given the

¶17

WRIA No. 1204 of 2026

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

February 4, 2026 Ram Murti

¶21

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Prasad Yadav and 35 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Yadav and 35 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 7 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

Sanjay Kumar (S.I.PNO-960580550) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt., Lko. and 4 Others

Sub Inspector, PNO-932080053, Anwar Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Ravindr Kumar Alias Ravindra Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest, Deptt. of Envi. Forest, Climate Change Lko. and 2 Others

Sonu Saroj @ Sonu Kumar Saroj and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Naveen Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Girendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others