Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34144 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6437 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shubha Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Aditya Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 & 4. 2. In view of the proposed order, the notice to opposite party No.5 is hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly the opposite party No.2, to pay the petitioner the salary and service benefits of the post of Headmistress, along with all consequential benefits, for the entire period during which she has been discharging the duties as In-charge Headmistress, and to continue paying the same so long as she continues to discharge the duties In-charge Headmistress. (ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment dated 30.04.2025 passed in Special Appeal No.652 of 2024 (Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board and 2 others vs. Tripurari Dubey and 3 others), within a stipulated time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for redressal of her grievance, the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 13.05.2025 to the opposite party No.3, but no decision has been taken on the same till date. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is ready to prefer a fresh representation to the Competent Authority, therefore, she may be permitted to prefer a fresh representation to the Competent Authority and direction may be issued him to consider and decide the said representation within a stipulated time. 6. Learned counsels for the opposite parties have no objection if direction is issued to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated time. 7. In view of the above, without entering into merits of the issue, the instant writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage permitting the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.3 i.e. the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar taking all pleas and grounds which are available with her annexing therewith copy of her earlier representation, if any, and the relevant documents in support of her claim within a period of fifteen days from today, and if any such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law and also in the light of the judgment and order dated 30.04.2025 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No.652 of 2024; Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board and 2 others vs. Tripurari Dubey and 3 others, verifying its applicability on the issue in question by passing a speaking and reasoned order, with expedition preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order along with representation and the decision thereof be intimated to the petitioner forthwith. 8. In view of the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Suresh/ Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench