Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 92339 (ALL)

VIJAI KUMAR AND 51 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/13895/2025 · 2025-09-16

Manju Rani Chauhan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13895 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Heard Mr. Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The present writ petition has been filed with the following relief:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents authorities to pay the salary to the petitioners for the post of Head Master/ Head Mistress, and to pay arrears since they are working as In-charge Head Master/Headmistress, within stipulated period so fixed by this Hon'ble Court." Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners who are 52 in numbers have made representations before the authority concerned for redressal of their grievances. However, despite several representations moved by the petitioners, no heed has yet been paid. Therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent no.3 to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law within a time bound period. Learned counsel for respondent-BSA submits 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. 22427 of 2025. However, he submits that in case fresh representations are given by the petitioners individually before the respondent no.3, the same may be decided in accordance with law. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamal Kumar Kesherwani Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Devesh Vikram Vijai Kumar And 51 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioners may make fresh applications/representations, individually, ventilating all their grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the respondent no.3 -District Basic Education Officer, District-Meerut, within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such representations 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. September 17, 2025 Rahul. WRIA No. 13895 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad