school work, write, still life-851328.jpg

-Report by Shweta Sabuji

The recent case of PANCHAM LAL PANDEY versus NEERAJ KUMAR MISHRA & ORS., talks about the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 and how section 9, read along with section 10 of the act comes into being.


Tripathi Ramroop Sanskrit Vidyalaya, located in Jogapur, Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh, is an established school that provides Sanskrit education from Class I to XII, or what is also known as Uttar Madhyama. The school was granted permanent recognition on February 22, 1999. The Government of Uttar Pradesh has decided to include Sanskrit Vidyalayas and Mahavidyalayas on its Grant-in-Aid List, and has laid out specific criteria for institutions to be included in this list in a G.O. dated February 7, 2014. The State Government has notified a list of institutions that have been included in the Grant-in-Aid List, including Tripathi Ramroop Sanskrit Vidyalaya which is listed as Serial No.47. In relation to the aforementioned institution, the State Government approved five positions for salary payment from the State Exchequer, one for the Headmaster and four for the

Assistant professors. In a circular dated 01.01.2016, the Principal Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh approved the payment of salaries to all instructors at institutions receiving Grant-in-Aid who were actively employed previous to the institution’s inclusion on the Grant-in-Aid list. A different circular, dated 18.03.2016, outlined how the reserve policy should be applied. One of the professors, Satya Prakash Shukla, filed Writ Petition No. 29784 of 2016 before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court since the aforementioned Circulars were having an impact on some of the teachers.

On the grounds that the Joint Secretary of the Department of Secondary Education had stated that “the payment of salary to the teachers shall be made on the basis of seniority of teachers as disclosed in the Manager’s Return,” the aforementioned Writ Petition was granted by order dated December 21, 2016. Unfortunately, by order dated March 28, 2017, the Director of Secondary Education divided the positions of Assistant Teachers, disregarding the Joint Secretary’s testimony before the High Court, and ordered that Neeraj Kumar Mishra, who was nearly five years younger than Pancham Lal Pandey, be paid a salary. In light of this, the aforementioned Pancham Lal Pandey chose

As a result, the aforementioned Pancham Lal Pandey filed Writ Petition No. 19709 of 2017 to contest the Director of Secondary Education’s order from March 28, 2017. Following a hearing with the parties, the aforementioned writ petition was granted by decision and order dated 15.04.2019, nullifying the order dated 28.03.2017 and directing the authorities to declare Pancham Lal Pandey entitled to payment of salary from the State Exchequer.


The argument made by the knowledgeable attorney representing the appellant in this case, Pancham Lal Pandey, in challenging the aforementioned order is that the Review Application was not maintainable because Neeraj Kumar Mishra’s Special Appeal was dismissed with no apparent error on the face of the record, and that the review was approved without taking his objections to the maintainability of the application into account.


On the other side, Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel defended the order on the grounds that the learned Single Judge had made a clear legal error in granting the writ petition and that if the order is left in place, it will continue criminal activity, which is against the law. In light of Section 9 read with Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the institution is not permitted to create any new post of a teacher or any employee without the prior approval of the Director, so the review petition was properly allowed because there was an apparent error in the order of the Division Bench dismissing the Special Appeal.


The Joint Secretary of the Department of Secondary Education stated that teachers’ salaries would be paid based on seniority, therefore the question of teaching was irrelevant. In light of this declaration, the Single Judge granted the writ petition. The institution’s decision to divide the authorized Assistant Teacher positions into subject-based groups is purely an internal decision that imposes no additional burden on the State. Since the school was placed on the Grant-in-Aid list with a Headmaster and four Assistant Teachers in order of seniority, allowing just five people to earn compensation from government funds is legal. The Court did not establish a new position for an assistant teacher at the institution. Because of this, the Writ Court correctly granted the writ petition, and the Division Bench did nothing wrong by rejecting the Special Appeal. We believe that, given the facts and circumstances of the case, the contested ruling, dated February 5, 2021, enabling the review, is illegal and must be reversed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *