SHRIKANT SHARMAversusSTATE OF UP AND 4 OTHERS

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                           WRIT - A No. - 13333 of 2026

Shrikant Sharma
                                                                    .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

State Of Up And 4 Others
                                                                  .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           : Shashank Bhushan Pandey Chanchal,
                                      Shivendra Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)           : C.S.C.

Court No. - 6
                   HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding directing
the respondents to grant and pay to the petitioner the salary admissible to the post of
principal for the entire period during which he has actually functioned and
discharged the duties of Karyawahak/ Officiating Principal, with effect from
01.07.2019, And to commanding directing respondents to calculate and pay to the
petitioner the entire difference between the salary actually paid to him as Assistant
Teacher and the salary admissible to the post of Principal for the aforesaid period,
along with consequential benefits and reasonable interest.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding directing
respondents to calculate and pay to the petitioner the entire difference of the salary
actually paid to him as Assistant Teacher and the salary admissible to the post of
Principal for the aforesaid period, along with consequential benefits with reasonable
interest.
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding directing
respondents to direct the respondent no.4/ District Inspect of Schools to consider and
decide the petitioner's representations dated 08.04.2026 and 29.04.2026, keeping in
view the judgments of this 'Hon'ble Court referred to hereinabove, within time-bound
period."

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.04.2026 passed in
                                                               WRIA No. 13333 of 2026
                                         2


Writ-A No. 5361 of 2026 (Triyugi Deo Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 4
others), while observing the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this
Court in Special Appeal No. 209 of 2026 (Veeresh Chandra Mishra and 2
others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others), vide its judgment dated 16.03.2026,
had considered the said ratio, that the Officiating Principal shall be
entitled to payment of the higher salary of Principal, and as such, he
submits that he is also entitled to the same relief. For ready reference,
paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order dated 16.04.2026 are reproduced
hereinbelow:-

6. Reliance has also been placed on the recent judgment/order dated March 26, 2026
passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.209 of 2026 (Veeresh
Chandra Mishra And 2 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others). Relevant paragraph
No. 48 of the judgment in Veeresh Chandra Mishra (supra) is reproduced hereunder:-


"48. As to the relief to be delivered-
(i) It is first declared that the original petitioners/appellants shall be entitled to
continue as Officiating Principal of their respective Intermediate Colleges, till any
regularly appointed candidate is made available, to such institutions.
(ii) For the duration of their continuance as Officiating Principal, the original
petitioners/appellants shall be entitled to payment of higher salary of Principal,
without any other or further relief. (iii) For the purpose of computation of period for
which the higher payment of salary has to be made, the original petitioners/appellants
would be entitled to receive such higher salary from the expiry of three months from
the date of their signature being attested, as ad-hoc Principal. That amount may be
computed and paid out to the original petitioners/appellants, within a period of three
months from today."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment
dated March 23, 2023 passed in Satya Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. and others,
Writ - A No.- 2733 of 2023. In the cited case Coordinate Bench of this Court has
considered the judgment of Full Bench and vide paragraph 8, the Court held thus:
"8. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Agnihotri v. State of
U.P.: 2010 0 Supreme (All) 196, very categorically held that an officiating principal
holding substantive post on the basis of seniority and possessing requisite
qualification, if cannot be denied service benefits and in terms of salary, such person
can equally be not denied pension which is also got the service benefits to which
otherwise he would be entitled on the basis of last pay drawn. Vide paragraph 17 of
                                                                                                     WRIA No. 13333 of 2026
                                                                         3


                                    the judgment the Court answered the reference as under:
                                    "17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the legal position, we make
                                    reference for constitution of a Larger Bench to deal with the following question of
                                    law:
                                    "Whether a teacher of Intermediate College who has already been appointed as
                                    officiating principal of the Institution by virtue of his seniority on attaining the age of
                                    superannuation in the extended period of his service shall continue as officiating
                                    principal or simply as a teacher?"

                                    4. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid proposition
                                    and submits that the representations dated 08.04.2026 and 29.04.2026
                                    shall be considered as per law.

                                    5. In view of the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping
                                    the aforesaid writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the
                                    writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the authority concerned to
                                    consider and decide the petitioner's representations dated 08.04.2026 and
                                    29.04.2026 expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from
                                    the date of production of a certified copy of this order, provided there is no
                                    legal impediment.

                                    6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands
                                    disposed off.



                                                                                                  (Siddharth Nandan,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    piyush




Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad