Allahabad High Court
KANTI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The court dismissed the writ petition and ordered the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the District Basic Education Officer for consideration of salary entitlement.
Summary
The petitioner, Kanti Devi, filed a writ petition seeking payment of salary for the post of Headmaster at Uchh Prathmik Vidyalaya, Semari, alleging that she was promoted by order dated 03.07.2015 and had been functioning in that capacity but had not received salary. The respondents, including the State of U.P. and the Block Sub‑Assistant (BSA), contended that the petitioner assumed charge in violation of the prescribed procedure and that her appointment had not been certified by the competent authority, rendering her ineligible for the relief claimed. The court examined the representations and noted that the petitioner had not furnished the required documentation to prove lawful assumption of charge. Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to file a fresh application before the District Basic Education Officer, accompanied by supporting documents, within three weeks. The respondent was instructed to consider the fresh representation and decide the matter, including salary entitlement, within two months, provided there is no legal impediment.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the post of Headmaster despite alleged procedural irregularities in assuming charge.
- Whether the court should direct payment of salary or require the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the education authority.
Subjects
- salary
- promotion
- headmaster
- education
- writ petition
- administrative law
- procedural compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 11794 of 2026
Kanti Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Kumar Yadav, Satish Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shashi Prakash Singh
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Singh,
Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Shashi Prakash Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent-BSA, and learned Standing Counsel
for the State.
The writ petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the
respondents to pay salary for the post of Headmaster in Primary
School, Semari, Jamalpur, Ghosi, District-Mau (wrongly
mentioned), whereas, as per page 16 of the writ petition, it is
Uchh Prathmik Vidyalaya, Semari.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
promoted to the post of Headmaster by order dated 03.07.2015,
and pursuant thereto, she joined and has functioned as
Headmaster in Uchh Prathmik Vidyalaya, Semari, Jamalpur,
Ghosi, Mau, however, salary has not been paid. She has
represented before the authorities concerned, but as nothing was
done, the present writ petition has been filed.
In compliance with the earlier order of this Court, learned
counsel for the respondent-BSA has placed the instructions
before the Court today, wherein it has been stated that the
petitioner has assumed charge in violation of the procedure
prescribed under law, and that her joining has also not been
certified by the concerned officer. No such information
WRIA No. 11794 of 2026
2
regarding taking charge as Headmaster has been provided by the
petitioner to the concerned authority, therefore, she is not
entitled to the relief as prayed. However, it is submitted that in
case a fresh representation is placed by the petitioner before the
authorities concerned, an appropriate order shall be passed in
accordance with law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf
of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by
providing that the petitioner may make a fresh
application/representation, ventilating all her grievances,
supported by such documents as may be advised, before
respondent no.5, District Basic Education Officer, Mau, within
three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order.
On such representation being made, the respondent no.5 shall
make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, strictly in
accordance with law, after verifying the promotional order as
well as the fact that charge has been taken by the petitioner in
accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking
order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of two months from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
September 9, 2026
Rahul.
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…