Allahabad High Court

AJAY KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: SIDDHARTH NANDAN

Holding

The impugned order denying the petitioner’s salary as Officiating Principal is set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to the Principal’s salary.

Summary

The petitioner, Ajay Kumar Singh, a senior lecturer appointed as Officiating Principal of a college, challenged the respondents' order dated 08.03.2025 which denied him the salary of a Principal. He argued that, under the precedent set in Veeresh Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P., an officiating principal is entitled to the higher salary from the date his signature is attested. The respondents did not dispute the legal principle but had rejected his claim. The High Court, after noting the Supreme Court's approval of the Veeresh Chandra Mishra decision, held that the impugned order could not be sustained. Consequently, the court set aside the order, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's salary claim within seven days and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether an Officiating Principal is entitled to the salary of a regular Principal.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the salary claim is legally valid.
Whether the relief granted in Veeresh Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P. is applicable to the present case.

Subjects

Officiating Principal
Salary entitlement
Writ petition
Administrative law
Precedent
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16051 of 2026

Ajay Kumar Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Uma Nath Pandey, Vivek
Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, Advocate appearing on behalf
of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that vide
the impugned order dated 08.03.2025, the respondents-
authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner for the
payment of salary on the post of Officiating Principal. Counsel
for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner was
appointed as a Lecturer in Civics subject, in the respondent
Institution on 16.04.2005 and after the transfer of the erstwhile
Principal, Dr. Rajesh Singh, the vacancy having arisen, the
Committee of Management appointed the petitioner as an
Officiating Principal, by virtue of him being senior-most
Lecturer in the Institution.

3. The signature of the petitioner was also attested by the
District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh; however, despite the
request of the Management, the salary of the petitioner was not
released commensurate with the post of the Principal as per
law; and now vide the impugned order dated 08.03.2025, the
payment of the salary to the petitioner has been rejected.

4. He has placed reliance upon a decision in the case of
Veeresh Chandra Mishra and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 5
WRIA No. 16051 of 2026
2

others, Special Appeal No. 209 of 2026, which has been
approved by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No.
32854 of 2026 vide its order dated 15.09.2026. For ready
reference, the relief granted in the judgment dated 25.03.2026
in Veeresh Chandra Mishra (supra) is reproduced below:-

"48. As to the relief to be delivered-
(i) It is first declared that the original petitioners/appellants shall be
entitled to continue as Officiating Principal of their respective
Intermediate Colleges, till any regularly appointed candidate is made
available, to such institutions.
(ii) For the duration of their continuance as Officiating Principal, the
original petitioners/appellants shall be entitled to payment of higher
salary of Principal, without any other or further relief.
(iii) For the purpose of computation of period for which the higher
payment of salary has to be made, the original petitioners/appellants
would be entitled to receive such higher salary from the expiry of three
months from the date of their signature being attested, as ad-hoc
Principal. That amount may be computed and paid out to the original
petitioners/appellants, within a period of three months from today."

5. On the basis of the aforesaid, the counsel for the petitioner
submits that he is also entitled to the same relief.

6. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the proposition
of law that once an incumbent is appointed as an Officiating
Principal, he is also entitled to the salary commensurate with
the post of Principal of the Institution.

7. In view of the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose shall be served
by keeping the present writ petition pending and, with the
consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being decided
at the interim stage.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated
08.03.2025 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is
accordingly set aside. The respondent no. 2 shall accord
consideration to the claim of the petitioner, on a fresh
WRIA No. 16051 of 2026
3

representation being filed by the petitioner within a period of 7
days from today, expeditiously, preferably within a period of
two months from the date of filing of the said representation
along with the certified copy of this order, keeping in view the
observations made by this Court as well as the law laid down in
the case of Veeresh Chandra Mishra (supra).

9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition
stands disposed off.

(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
October 1, 2026
piyush

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…