Allahabad High Court
SANJEEV KUMAR RATHORE AND 36 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The petition is disposed, directing the competent authority to consider individual representations and pass reasoned orders on each petitioner’s salary claim in line with the earlier decision in Seema Ray.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of 37 employees, filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of communications issued by the Finance Controller and the Director of Education, and demanded that their salaries be re‑fixed with the first increment as of 01‑01‑2017 along with payment of arrears and interest. They also sought directions for regular monthly salary disbursement and costs. The Court observed that the matter had already been decided in Writ A No. 481 of 2026 (Seema Ray & 3 Others v. State of U.P. & 5 Others) and therefore declined to re‑examine the substantive issues. Accordingly, the petition was disposed with a directive that the competent authority consider each petitioner’s individual representation, taking into account dates of appointment, joining, and reasons for delayed joining, and decide each claim in accordance with statutory provisions, government orders, and the observations made in Seema Ray. The authority must issue a reasoned order within six weeks of receiving the representations.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate salary fixation and arrears payable to the petitioners under the applicable statutory provisions and government orders?
- Whether the communications dated 18‑11‑2025 and 21‑11‑2025 should be quashed by certiorari?
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for re‑fixation of salary and payment of arrears with interest?
Subjects
- salary fixation
- arrears of salary
- certiorari
- government orders
- individual representations
- education sector
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14895 of 2026
Sanjeev Kumar Rathore And 36 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Girijesh Kumar Tripathi,
Shivendra Kumar Singh
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shivendra Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi,
learned counsel for respondent-BSA as well as learned Standing Counsel
for the State.
2. The petitioners, who are 37 in number, have approached this Court
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 (Annexure no. 6 to
the writ petition), the order dated 21.11.2025 issued by the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. Lucknow
(Annexure no.7 to the writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents to re-fix 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 suitable nature commanding the respondents to compute 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 Hon'ble Court along with interest so specified by this Hon'ble
Court.
(v) Issue any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances
of the case.
(vi) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners."
WRIA No. 14895 of 2026
2
3. The issue in question has already been decided by this Court in Writ A
No.481 of 2026, (Seema Ray and 3 Others vs. State of UP and 5
Others), decided on 24.08.2026.
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 by this Court in Seema
Ray (supra), 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 17, 2026
Jitendra/-
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…