Disposed¶20

Shikha Dwivedi and 12 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2026WRIA/738/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Officiating charge of Headmaster; non-payment of salary of said post; UP Basic Education Department; Tripurari Dubey 2025:AHC:67382-DB (Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024); affirmed by Supreme Court, SLP(C) No. 22427 of 2025 dismissed 13.08.2025; WRIT - A No. 738 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no. 4 to consider claim within six weeks; decided January 27, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 4 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, within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶20

Shikha Dwivedi and 12 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

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, and whether their claim should be considered in light of the Division Bench judgment in Tripurari Dubey.

¶13

Court's answer

The contesting respondents did not dispute the question of law decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Tripurari Dubey.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 4 to consider the petitioners' claim for being given the salary of the post of Headmaster-in-charge in accordance with law and the relevant rules as well as the Division Bench judgment in Tripurari Dubey.

¶20

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¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petitioners, who had been given officiating charge of the post of Headmaster but were not being paid the salary of that post, sought a direction for consideration of their claim. Relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Secretary, UP Basic Education Board and Ors Vs. Tripurari Dubey and Ors (Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024, 2025: AHC:67382-DB), which stands affirmed by the Supreme Court with dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22427 of 2025 by order dated 13.08.2025, and noting that the contesting respondents did not dispute the question of law so decided, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 4 to consider the petitioners' claim for salary of the post of Headmaster-in-charge in accordance with law, the relevant rules and the said Division Bench judgment, within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 738 of 2026

¶3

Shikha Dwivedi And 12 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Mishra, Akash Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Abhinav Singh, Ran Vijay Singh

¶9

Court No. - 18

¶10

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard Mr. Akash Mishra, advocate, holding brief of Mr. Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Shivam Prakash Dixit, Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the respondents nos. 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

¶17

WRIA No. 738 of 2026

¶18

¶19

dispute the aforesaid question of law as decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tripurari Dubey (supra).

¶20

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

January 27, 2026

¶22

Mayank

¶23

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶24

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

Shikha Dwivedi and 12 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shikha Dwivedi and 12 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. 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

Similar cases

Ram Milan vs Her Excellency the Chancellor of the University of Lko. and 3 Others

Yogesh Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Industrial Development Lko. and 4 Others

Brijesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education Govt. Lko. and 6 Others

Vivek Pathak and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Food and Supply Lko. and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar Pandey vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 3 Others

Mohammad Iqbal Ahmad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Dairy Development Lko. and 3 Others