Allahabad High Court
HITESH KUMAR AND 29 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. 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 within six weeks, in accordance with the observations in Seema Ray.
Summary
Thirty petitioners, including Hitesh Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a Finance Controller communication and a Director of Education order, and demanding that their salaries be re‑fixed with the first increment as of 01‑01‑2017, along with regular monthly payment and arrears with interest. The petitioners contended that the matter had already been decided in Seema Ray & 3 others v. State of U.P. (2026). The respondents did not dispute this point. The High Court, noting the prior decision, disposed of the petition and directed the competent authority to consider any individual representations submitted by the petitioners, examine each claim in light of statutory provisions, Government Orders and the observations in Seima Ray, and issue a reasoned order within six weeks. No order as to costs was made.
Issues considered
- What reliefs, if any, can be granted to the petitioners for salary re‑fixation and arrears in view of the prior judgment in Seema Ray v. State of U.P.?
- Whether the petitioners' writ petition should be dismissed and the matter referred to the competent authority for individual consideration?
Subjects
- salary arrears
- writ of certiorari
- government employees
- incremental salary
- administrative law
- prior judgment
- individual representations
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15496 of 2026
Hitesh Kumar And 29 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., Nagendra Kumar Pandey,
Shivendra Kumar Singh
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the State, Mr. Shivendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2,
Mr. Nagendra Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate who has put in appearance
on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 and perused the record.
2. The petitioners, who are 30 in number, have preferred the instant writ
petition for the following reliefs:
"(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."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in question has
already been decided by this Court by judgement dated 24.08.2026 passed in
the case of Seema Ray and 3 others v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A
WRIA No. 15496 of 2026
2
No. 481 of 2026 : Neutral Citation-2026:AHC:178110.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid fact.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present 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 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.
6. No order as to costs.
September 24, 2026
DS
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DIGAMBER SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…