Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71441 (ALL)

NIRA YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/8929/2025 · 2025-07-07

Manju Rani Chauhan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107988 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8929 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nira Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Ji Rai,Pramod Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary and other benefits regularly alongwith arrears and interest to the petitioner w.e.f. 12.05.2016 for the post of Head Mistress in Dharmendra Kumar, Janta Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mujary, District-Maharajganj. B. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay current salary to the petitioner if any when the same falls due admissible to the post of head mistress. C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to decide the representation dated 19.04.2025 pending before the respondent no.2. D. Issue, any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court any deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case. E. Award cost of the instant writ petition in favour of the petitioner." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Head Mistress in the institution of respondent no.4 after following proper procedure prescribed under the U.P. Recognize Basic School (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rule, 1978. Accordingly, she joined on 12.05.2016, but salary has not been paid to the petitioner as no final decision has been taken by respondent no.2 granting approval. In this regard, a representation has been given before the respondent no.2, but till date nothing has been done. Hence the present writ petition has been filed. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and in case a fresh representation is being given before the respondent no.2, the same may be decided in accordance with law. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.2- District Basic Education Officer, District-Maharajganj, raising all her grievances within a period of two weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, by reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order if there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad