Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 58410 of 2012 Petitioner :- Sabhajeet Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ch.N.A.Khan,Irfan Raza Khan Counsel for Respondent :- V.B.Mishra Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed directing respondent No.4 to release the salaries to the petitioner by considering the representation made by the petitioner. 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the fifth-respondent Institution i.e. Sri Dev Vani Pracharak Sanskrit Vidhyalaya Shahganj, Jaunpur and joined on 15.10.1989. The said institution was admitted into grant-in-aid list in the year 1994, accordingly one post of Principal and three posts of Assistant Teachers were sanctioned in the said institution and the same were admitted into grant-in-aid. 4. Even after admitting the Institution into grant-in-aid, the salaries have not been released. Along with the petitioner some other teachers have approached this Court in Writ Petition No.5370 of 1998. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.02.1998 directing the respondents to pay the salary and other retiremental benefits to the petitioner, and after non-compliance of the said order, the petitioner has also invoked the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner once again made a request by way of representation for release of the salaries, in view of the pendency of the issue before the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar Dwivedi 2006 (7) SCC 667, the respondents have not considered the representation and not released the salaries. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 5. Now the Apex Court has disposed of the said writ petition, with the following directions:- "The submission of Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the State of U.P. with reference to the subject School, namely, Riyaz Junior High School (Classes VI to VIII), that the said school was initially a private recognized and aided school and the primary section (Classes I to V) was opened by the management later on after obtaining separate recognition, which was un- aided, the teachers of such primary section, in terms of definition in Rule 2(b) and Rule 4 of the 1975 Rules are not entitled to the benefits of Section 10 of the 1978 Act does not appeal to us for what we have already said above. The view taken by the High Court in the first round in Vinod Sharma' that Classes I to VIII taught in the institution are one unit, the teachers work under one management and one Head Master and, therefore, teachers of the primary classes cannot be deprived of the benefit of the 1978 Act, cannot be said to be a wrong view. Rather, it is in accord and conformity with the Constitutional scheme relating to free education to the children up to 14 years. 46. Though in the Reference Order, the two-Judge Bench has observed that the High Court in the first round in Vinod Sharma' did not appreciate that the education at the primary level has been separated from the Junior High School level and separately entrusted under the different enactments to the Board constituted under Section 3 of the 1972 Act and the same Board exercises control over Junior Basic Schools and it was a conscious distinction made by the Legislature between two sets of schools and treat them two separate components and, therefore, Vinod Sharma¹ does not take the correct view but we think that the features noted in the reference order do not render the view taken in Vinod Sharma' bad. We find merit in the argument of Dr. M.P. Raju that the schools having the Junior Basic Schools and the Senior Basic Schools either separately or together are under the same Board, i.e., the Board of Basic Education, as per the 1972 Act. Moreover, any other view may render the provisions of the 1978 Act unconstitutional on the ground of discrimination. In our considered view, any interpretation which may lead to unconstitutionality of the provision must be avoided. We hold, as it must be, that Junior High School necessarily includes Classes I to V when they are opened in a Senior Basic School (Classes VI to VIII) after obtaining separate recognition and for which there may not be a separate order of grant-in-aid by the Government." 6. In view of the above observations of the Apex Court, this writ petition is also disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation along with a copy of the order passed by the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar Dwivedi (supra) within a period of two weeks, and the respondents may consider the said representation and take appropriate action within two months thereafter, and accordingly, if the orders are in favour of the petitioner, it is needless to mention that the respondents may also release the salaries/ monetary benefits to the petitioner. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad