Allahabad High Court
Smt. Namrata Srivastava And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And 6 Ors. on 1 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:152893
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 2121 of 2015
Smt. Namrata Srivastava And 3 Ors.
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Ors.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ikshwaku Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Ajay Kumar Rai, C.S.C., Mrigraj Singh
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ikshwaku Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5.
3. Present writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 06.01.2009 passed by respondent no.1, wherein payment of salaries to the petitioners has been denied on the ground that the institution was granted recognition on 01.10.1973, therefore, the affiliation of primary section or subsequent to the cut-off date fixed in Director order dated 21st October, 1989 i.e. 21.06.1973. Apart from that, as per inspection done on 05.11.2008, the institution is primary sections are not maintained properly.
4. Admittedly, the institution was established on 12.03.1967 and subsequently, on 06.01.1970, the said institution was granted permanent recognition. Later on, on 05.07.1972, recognition was granted to the junior high school, and finally, permanent recognition was granted upto high school level vide order dated 01.10.1973.
5. As per the Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees Act, 1971, which came into effect from 01.08.1977, the institution was also admitted into grant-in-aid and accordingly, payments were made to the teachers imparting education to high schools. As the petitioners are working in primary sections, their salaries were not released. When the said request was not considered, the petitioners along with certain others, filed Writ A No. 66504 of 2006. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2007, with following directions:
"In these circumstances, and in this background, Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow is directed to see that entire record is transmitted to Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of U.P. within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
After receipt of papers, Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of U.P. is directed to take final decision in the matter in accordance with law within next eight weeks and the decision so taken be communicated to one of the petitioners."
6. Consequent to the abovesaid orders, the first respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 06.01.2009.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the observations made in the impugned order are contrary to the observations made by this Court in the abovesaid writ petition and the said observations were affirmed by the Apex Court in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar Dwivedi & Ors. 2014 0 Supreme (SC) 627, by dismissing the appeals filed by the State. Operative portions of the abovesaid order, are as under:
"39. There is not much debate that the students of secondary and primary schools are classified in Section 3 of Educational Code (Revised 1958 Edition) as follows:
(a) Pre-basic Stage ?.Nursery Education
(b) Junior Basic (Primary) Stage ?. Classes I to V
(c) Senior Basic (Junior High Schools) ?Classes VI to VIII Stage
(d) Higher Secondary Stage:
I. High School Stage?..Classes IX and X II. Intermediate Stage?..Classes XI and XII
44. As regards the first two categories of Junior High Schools, the applicability of Section 10 of the 1978 Act does not create any difficulty. The debate which has centered round in this group of appeals is in respect of third category of the schools where Classes I to V are added after obtaining recognition to the schools which are recognized and aided for imparting education in Classes VI to VIII. Whether teachers of primary section Classes I to V in such schools are entitled to the benefit of Section 10 of the 1978 Act is the moot question. As noticed, the constitutional obligation of the state to provide for free and compulsory education of children till they complete the age of 14 years is beyond doubt now. The note appended to clause (xxvi), para 1 of the Educational Code (revised edition, 1958), inter alia, provides that Basic Schools include single schools with Classes I to VIII. In our view, if a Junior Basic School (Classes I to V) is added after obtaining necessary recognition to a recognized and aided Senior Basic School (Classes VI to VIII), then surely such Junior Basic School becomes integral part of one school, i.e., Basic School having Classes I to VIII. The expression "Junior High School" in the 1978 Act is intended to refer to the schools imparting basic education, i.e., education up to VIII class. We do not think it is appropriate to give narrow meaning to the expression "Junior High School" as contended by the learned senior counsel for the state. That Legislature used the expression Junior High School and not the Basic School as used and defined in the 1972 Act, in our view, is insignificant. The view, which we have taken, is fortified by the fact that in Section 2(j) of the 1978 Act, the expressions defined in the 1972 Act are incorporated.
45. 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 Sharma 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."
8. Considering the submissions and perusal of the above said judgments, it clearly establishes that the impugned order is contrary to the observations made by the Apex Court in the above-referred judgment.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the authorities, once again, to reconsider the issue as per the observations made by the Apex Court and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if required by issuing notice to respondent nos. 4 and 5.
10. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Donadi Ramesh,J.) September 1, 2025 Noman