Allahabad High Court
SURENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The petitioner may file a fresh representation before the District Basic Education Officer, who must decide it in accordance with law within two months, following the directions in Tripurari Dubey.
Summary
The petitioner, Surendra Nath Srivastav, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri, to consider his claim for fixation as Officiating Headmaster from 01‑07‑2013 to his retirement on 31‑03‑2018 and to award the corresponding retiral dues and pension. The petitioner alleged that despite multiple representations, the authority had taken no action. The respondents contended that the matter was already settled by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024 (Tripurari Dubey v. Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board) and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and that a subsequent Government Order dated 14‑10‑2025 barred the relief sought. The Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation within three weeks, and ordered the respondent to consider it in accordance with law, following the Tripurari Dubey directions, and to issue a reasoned order within two months, subject to no legal impediment. The petition was therefore disposed with the said procedural direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to fixation as Officiating Headmaster from 01‑07‑2013 to 31‑03‑2018 and the associated retiral benefits.
- Whether the earlier judgment in Tripurari Dubey (2024) and the Supreme Court’s affirmation preclude any further relief.
- Whether the petitioner can be directed to make a fresh representation before the District Basic Education Officer and the respondent’s duty to decide it.
Subjects
- writ petition
- fixation
- officiating headmaster
- retiral dues
- pension
- representation
- education service
- Teacher Eligibility Test
- government order
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6823 of 2026
Surendra Nath Srivastav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Srivastava III
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition for a direction upon
respondent no. 3 - District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri to consider the
claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of fixation on the post of
Officiating Headmaster w.e.f. 01.07.2013 till the date of his retirement i.e.
31.03.2018, and pay retiral dues and pension accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for ventilation of his
grievance, the petitioner has approached the authority concerned by moving
representation. However, despite several representations moved by the
petitioner, no heed has yet been paid.
Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the controversy regarding
payment of the aforesaid has already been settled by the Division Bench of
this Court in Special Appeal No.652 of 2024 (Secretary, U.P. Basic
Education Board and 2 Others vs. Tripurari Dubey and 3 Others) decided on
30.04.2025. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the Apex Court by
dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal, vide order dated 13.08.2025 in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22472 of 2025. He has also relied upon
paragraphs-214 to 218 of the judgment dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, wherein
it has been categorically held that in-service teachers, (irrespective of the
length of their service) would also be required to qualify the Teacher
Eligibility Test (TET) to continue in service. Learned Standing Counsel also
informs that the Government Order dated 14.10.2025 has been issued,
according to which the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed.
The aforesaid Government Order dated 14.10.2025 is under challenge in
Writ-A No.18154 of 2025 (Rajnish Mourya and 135 others vs. State of
U.P. and 2 others). However, they submit that in case a fresh representation
is given by the petitioner before the respondent authority, the same may be
decided in accordance with law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner, the
present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner may
make fresh application/representation ventilating his grievances, supported
by such documents, as may be advised, before the respondent no.3 - District
Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri, within three weeks from today along
WRIA No. 6823 of 2026
2
with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made,
respondent no.3 shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same,
strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the directions issued in
Tripurari Dubey (supra), by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after
giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the
date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal
impediment.
May 6, 2026
DS
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DIGAMBER SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…