Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22231 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1952 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sunita Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitabh,S.S. Sharma,Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah,C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to direct the respondents specially District Basic Education Officer, concerned to make the payment of salary to the petitioner on the post of Incharge Headmistress. 3. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is entitled for the salary of aforesaid post from the date she is working on the same as per doctrine of equal pay for equal work. It is further argued that non payment of salary to the petitioner for the post, on which she is working is in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 07.05.2024 passed in Writ A No. 3863 of 2018 (Smt. Raj Kishori Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others). It is argued that controversy involved in the present petition is absolutely identical as in the case of Smt. Raj Kishori Kushwaha (supra). Inspite of the fact that various representations were made in this regard till date no action has been taken on the same hence present writ petition. 4. On the other hand it is argued by counsel for the respondent- District Basic Education Officer, concerned, that in case the petitioner is not getting salary in the grade for which she is entitled, in place of approaching this Court she should first of all approach the authorities concerned. It is further argued that in case petitioner will submit representation before the concerned District Basic Education Officer, she will decide the same expeditiously. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to submit fresh representation ventilating all her grievances before the respondent-District Basic Education Officer, concerned along-with certified copy of this order within a period of four weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent concerned is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of two months. 8. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Pramod Tripathi Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad