Allahabad High Court
ROHIT KUMAR AND 53 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The petition is disposed of, directing the competent authority to consider individual representations of each petitioner and pass reasoned orders in accordance with statutory provisions and the observations in Seema Ray.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of 54 education employees, sought quashing of a Finance Controller communication and a Director of Education order, and demanded that their salaries be re‑fixed with the first increment effective from 1 January 2017 along with payment of arrears and interest. The Court noted that the matter had already been decided in Seema Ray & 3 Others v. State of U.P. (Writ A No. 481 of 2026). Relying on that precedent, the Court declined to grant the writs and instead directed the competent authority to consider each petitioner’s individual representation, taking into account dates of appointment, joining, and reasons for delayed joining, and to pass a reasoned order for each within six weeks. The Court emphasized adherence to the applicable statutory provisions and Government Orders. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a directive for individualized adjudication.
Issues considered
- Whether the Finance Controller's communication dated 18‑11‑2025 and the Director of Education's order dated 21‑11‑2025 are liable to be quashed.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary re‑fixation with the first increment as of 01‑01‑2017.
- Whether the respondents should be directed to disburse regular salary, compute and pay arrears with interest.
- Whether the Court can order consideration of individual representations in line with the precedent set in Seema Ray.
Subjects
- salary fixation
- arrears of salary
- writ of certiorari
- education employees
- government orders
- individual representations
- precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14905 of 2026
Rohit Kumar And 53 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manvendra Singh, 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. Manvendra Singh, learned
counsel for respondent-BSA as well as learned Standing Counsel for the
State.
2. The petitioners, who are 54 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 1 ^ (st) 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. 14905 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…