Vijai Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 14076 of 2025

Vijai Pratap Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Education And 2 Others	Deptt. Secondary ....	.Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Om Prakash Verma, Hari Sinha, Raj Kumar Singh	Anuj Bahadur
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Akash Dikshit, Pandey	Pawan Kumar

¶7

Court No. - 18

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Director of Secondary Education, Govt. of U.P. Camp Office, Lucknow as opposite party no. 4 in the array of opposite parties.

¶10

Short counter affidavit filed today by Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Mr. R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and perused the records.

¶12

Instant writ petition has been filed with following prayers:-

¶13

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Party No.2, the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki, to forthwith release the petitioner's withheld salary for the post of Lecturer from November, 2024 till date with payable bonus, along with interest at such rate as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

¶14

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction directing the Opposite Party No.2 to ensure regular and timely disbursal of the petitioner's future monthly salary strictly in accordance with the U.P. Payment of Salaries Act, 1971, without any further delay or obstruction;

¶15

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Party No.2 to attest/authorize the signatures of the petitioner as Incharge Principal of City Intermediate College, District Barabanki;

¶16

WRIA No. 14076 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

iv. Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction directing initiation of disciplinary ог administrative action against the concerned officials responsible for the illegal withholding of the petitioner's salary for more than one year, if this Hon'ble Court so deems fit;

¶19

V. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner in view of the wholly arbitrary and illegal action of the Opposite Party No.2 in withholding the petitioner's salary without any lawful justification;

¶20

vi. Pass any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper to secure the ends of justice."

¶21

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the salary of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer from November, 2024 till date has not been paid as yet and signature of the petitioner as incharge Principal of City Intermediate College, Barabanki has not been attested.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a regularly appointed Teacher in the institute and the salary of the petitioner has been stopped since November, 2024 against the provisions of law. He added that on the resolution passed by Committee of Management, he has been given charge of Incharge Principal and he is adhering to the duties of Incharge Principal and letters were also written for attesting of the signature of the petitioner, but the same has not been done as yet, therefore, submission is that the authorities may be directed to ensure the payment of salary of the petitioner.

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the petitioner has been paid salary for the months of November and December, 2025. He submitted that committee for enquiry regarding work of the petitioner, was deputed, who submitted its report, wherein, it was found that on the said date, the petitioner was not attending the class. He submitted that in fact due salary bill of the petitioner, has been prepared and sent to the Director of Secondary Education for payment, as the payment of more than Rs.8,00,000/- goes for approval to the Office of Director and the District Inspector of Schools has no power to approve. He next added that conduct of

¶24

WRIA No. 14076 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

the petitioner is not appreciable as he is not allowing the regularly selected candidate namely, Dr. Shivcharan Gautam, who is a regularly selected Principal from the 'Board' in the College. He submitted that in fact the resolution of Committee of Management was there for termination of services of Dr. Shivcharan Gautam, which was disapproved and the same was challenged before this Court, whereafter, that was quashed and the matter was remitted back and subsequently, thereof, the Committee of Management again sent a resolution which was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools vide the order dated 29.12.2025 and the same is still intact, therefore, the status of Dr. Shivcharan Gautam is still intact as regularly selected Principal. He has shown anxiety that even after several directions to the Committee of Management and the petitioner that, they should allow Dr. Shivcharan Gautam to work in the College as Principal, but that has not been complied with, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶27

Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, in rejoinder, has argued that in fact the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools while disapproving the resolution of Committee of Management, is challenged under appeal, but he has failed to substantiate that there is any order passed by the appellate authority against the order dated 29.12.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner also added that on the authority given by the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner is doing work of Incharge Principal.

¶28

This Court finds that the order dated 26.11.2025 i.e. prior to the order passed dated 29.12.2025, therefore, this Court finds that there is no force to this extent of counsel for the petitioner that under the authority of District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner is working as Incharge-Principal. Further even after the District of Inspector of Schools has given some authority to the petitioner to work as incharge Principal, against the regularly selected Principal, who is waiting for work, that would be of no avail.

¶29

WRIA No. 14076 of 2025

¶30

4

¶31

In this view of the matter and to resolve the controversy as an interim stage, the Director Secondary Education is directed to ensure the payment of salary of the petitioner in furtherance to the salary bills sent by the DIOS, within period of ten days.

¶32

It is further provided that the Committee of Management and the District Inspector of Schools shall ensure that the regularly selected Principal, Dr. Shiv Charan Gautam, shall work as Principal, unless the order dated 29.12.2025 remains intact or any adversarial order is passed subsequent thereof.

¶33

The Superintendent of Police is directed to ensure the security of the Office of the Principal, so that Office could be opened, if it is locked and the regularly selected Principal could peacefully work, in the interest of the institution.

¶34

List/put up this matter on 27.03.2026, at 10:15 am.

¶35

If the salary of the petitioner is not paid as per the salary bill sent, the Director of Secondary Education, U.P. shall appear in person alongwith District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki, to show cause.

¶36

Mr. R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is given two weeks time for filing objection, to the impleadment application.

¶37

March 16, 2026

¶38

Mayank

¶39

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijai Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijai Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhanpal Singh and Another vs Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko. and 2 Others

Dr Govind Prasad vs Mr Deepak Kumar De Gm (1) State Bank of India Motimahal Road Lko. and Another

Nitish Ranjan Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Raj Alias Ram Raj Rana vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manoj Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Prashant Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others