Allahabad High Court

PAWAN KUMAR YADAV AND 25 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 22 OTHERS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

Holding

The petition is disposed, with the competent authority directed to consider individual representations and decide each claim in accordance with the law.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of 26 basic education employees, filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a communication dated 18‑11‑2025 and an order dated 21‑11‑2025 that fixed their salaries, and requested that they be granted the first increment effective from 01‑01‑2017 along with all arrears. They alleged that the authorities had not properly re‑fixed their salaries and had failed to pay regular monthly salaries and accrued arrears. The Court observed that the matter had already been decided in Writ A No. 481 of 2026 (Seema Ray et al. vs State of U.P. et al.). Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the competent authority to consider each petitioner’s individual representation, examine the claim in light of the relevant statutory provisions and Government Orders, and issue a reasoned order within six weeks. No substantive merits were re‑examined by the Court.

Issues considered

What is the legality of the Finance Controller’s communication and the Director of Education’s order fixing the petitioners’ salaries?
Are the petitioners entitled to the first salary increment as of 01‑01‑2017 and the consequent arrears?
Whether the petitioners’ claims should be decided individually based on statutory provisions and Government Orders.

Subjects

salary fixation
increment
arrears of salary
writ of certiorari
basic education employees
government orders
individual representation

Judgment

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                            WRIT - A No. - 14044 of 2026

Pawan Kumar Yadav And 25 Others
                                                                       .....Petitioner(s)
                                         Versus

State Of U.P. And 22 Others
                                                                    .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)            : Rajesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)            : Akanksha Sharma, Akhilesh Kumar
                                       Sharma, C.S.C., Harsh Vardhan Gupta,
                                       Kaushlesh Pratap Singh, Kushmondeya
                                       Shahi, Rama Nand Pandey, Shashi
                                       Prakash Singh, Shivendra Kumar Singh

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsels for the
respective BSAs and learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents, and perused the record.

2. The petitioners, who are 26 in number, have preferred the present
petition with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
communication dated 18.11.2025 issued by the Finance Controller, Board of Basic
Education, U.P., Prayagraj, and the order dated 21.11.2025 issued by the Director of
Education (Basic), UP, Lucknow.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents to
refix the salary of the petitioners by according 1st increment as on 01.01.2017 and to
re-fix the salary thereafter within the period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents to
disburse the petitioners their regular monthly salary every month as re-fixed in
accordance with the preceding paragraph

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to
compute the entire arrears of salary arising in favour of the petitioners on account of
such re-fixation and to disburse the same within a period to be specified by this
                                                                                                    WRIA No. 14044 of 2026
                                                                        2


                                    Hon'ble court along with interest so specified by this Hon'ble court."

                                    3. The issue in question has already been decided by this Court in a
                                    bunch of petitions leading being Writ A No.481 of 2026 (Seema Ray
                                    and 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others).

                                    4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
                                    the competent authority to consider and decide the individual
                                    representations, if any, submitted by the petitioners, specifically
                                    indicating their respective dates of appointment, dates of joining, and
                                    the circumstances in which they could not join on the first day of the
                                    relevant month. Upon receipt of such representations, the competent
                                    authority shall examine the claim of each petitioner in the light of the
                                    statutory provisions, the applicable Government Orders and the
                                    observations made herein above, and shall pass a reasoned and
                                    speaking order, dealing with the individual claim of each petitioner,
                                    within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such
                                    representation.



                                                                                      (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Rahul.




Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…