Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

ZAID AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The order dated 09‑07‑2025 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the District Basic Education Officer to consider the petitioner's fresh application for salary arrears in accordance with the Government Order.

Summary

The petitioner, Zaid Ahmad, an In‑charge Headmaster, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09‑07‑2025 issued by the District Basic Education Officer of Siddharth Nagar, seeking salary and arrears as per a Government Order dated 16‑07‑2026. He prayed for a certiorari to quash the impugned order and a mandamus directing payment of the arrears. The respondents argued that any fresh claim should be made before the competent authority and decided according to law. The Court examined the petitioner's entitlement under the Government Order and found that the earlier order was procedurally flawed. Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated 09‑07‑2025 and remitted the matter to the District Basic Education Officer, directing the petitioner to file a fresh, fully supported application within three weeks for a reasoned decision within two months. The writ petition was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the order dated 09‑07‑2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer is liable to be quashed.
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary and arrears of salary under the Government Order dated 16‑07‑2026.
  • Whether the Court can issue a mandamus directing payment of the arrears.

Subjects

  • salary arrears
  • government order
  • certiorari
  • mandamus
  • education officer
  • writ petition
  • quash order
  • administrative law

Judgment

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                   WRIT - A No. - 13948 of 2026

Zaid Ahmad
                                                                                         .....Petitioner(s)
                                                     Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                            : Nikhil Srivastava, Shashi Bhushan
Counsel for Respondent(s)                            : Ashok Kumar Singh, C.S.C.

Court No. - 52
                  HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent, Mr. Ram Bhuwan Singh, Advocate holding brief of
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and
perused the record.

The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:-

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quash the

impugned order dated 09.07.2025, passed by the Respondent No.3- District Basic Education Officer,

District Siddharth Nagar (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).


II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay

arrears of difference of salary to the petitioner on the post of Head Master, Junior Basic School since

19.09.2017, within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.


III. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper

under the facts and circumstances of the case.


IV. Award cost of the petition to the petitioner."


Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as
In-charge Headmaster. In view of the Government Order dated 16.07.2026,
(the date of the G.O. has wrongly been mentioned as 16.07.2025), the
petitioner is entitled to salary as well as arrears of salary. Therefore, a
direction may be issued to the respondent no.3 to decide the same.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case petitioner move a
                                                                                             WRIA No. 13948 of 2026
                                                                     2


                                    fresh representation before the competent authority, the same shall be
                                    considered and decided in accordance with law.

                                    Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the
                                    impugned order dated 09.07.2025, passed by respondent no.3, is hereby
                                    quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.3- District Basic
                                    Education Officer, District Siddharth Nagar, with a direction that, in case the
                                    petitioner submit fresh application/representation, ventilating all his
                                    grievances, supported by such documents as may be advised, before him/her,
                                    within three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order, the
                                    same shall be considered and decided, strictly in accordance with law,
                                    keeping in mind the directions issued in the aforesaid Government Order, by
                                    means of a reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of
                                    hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably
                                    within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified
                                    copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

                                    In view of aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed accordingly.



                                                                                 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Jitendra/-




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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.