1. Challenge to denial of salary arrears and retiral benefits for deceased husband-teacher, claiming valid appointment. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1524
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Siddharth Nandan, J.
Lakhraniya Devi - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 2695 of 2019
Decided On : 30-09-2026
Important Points
Primary teachers in recognized attached sections are entitled to salary under the 1978 Act regardless of separate grant-in-aid orders. Benefits cannot be denied based on post-retirement inspections or the lack of prior state-funded salary if the appointment was legally valid.
Subject
Service Law - Salary and Retiral Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Aided Schools and Other Educational Institutions Act, 1978 - Section 10 - Salary and retiral benefits - Primary school teachers attached to recognized senior sections are entitled to the benefit of Section 10 of the Act, 1978, regardless of whether a separate order of grant-in-aid has been issued by the government - This entitlement remains valid for schools having Junior Basic and Senior Basic Schools either separately or together under the same Board - Any contrary view would render the provisions of the Act unconstitutional on the ground of discrimination (Paras 8, 9).
(B) Validity of Appointment - The claim for salary and retiral benefits of a retired and deceased employee cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the employee was not found working during an inspection conducted after the date of retirement and death - The scrutiny of the claim must be strictly confined to the validity of the appointment and the actual rendering of services until superannuation (Paras 7, 15, 20).
(C) State Exchequer - A claim for salary and retiral benefits shall not be non-suited merely because the employee was not paid salary from the State exchequer prior to the date of death or retirement, provided the appointment was valid and other employees of the same institution were similarly treated (Para 20).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the widow of a former teacher, challenged an order denying arrears of salary and consequential retiral benefits. The respondent authorities had rejected the claim on the grounds that the employee had never received salary from the state exchequer and was not found working during an inspection. However, the management of the institution had confirmed that the employee was appointed according to law and served continuously until his superannuation. The primary section where the employee served was attached to a Junior High School.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order was unsustainable as it ignored the evidence of legal appointment and relied on an inspection report conducted after the employee's retirement and death. It was held that since the primary section was attached to a recognized senior section, the employee was entitled to salary under the 1978 Act, and the lack of prior state payment was not a valid ground for rejection.
Issues: Whether the denial of salary and retiral benefits based on the lack of prior payment from the state exchequer and absence in a post-retirement inspection report was legally sustainable, and whether primary section teachers attached to senior sections are entitled to salary under the 1978 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that primary teachers in recognized attached sections are entitled to salary under the 1978 Act without needing separate grant-in-aid orders. The validity of the appointment is the sole criterion for benefits; thus, claims cannot be dismissed based on post-retirement inspections or the source of previous salary payments if the appointment process was lawful.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
(B) Validity of Appointment - The claim for salary and retiral benefits of a retired and deceased employee cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the employee was not found working during an inspection conducted after the date of retirement and death - The scrutiny of the claim must be strictly confined to the validity of the appointment and the actual rendering of services until superannuation (Paras 7, 15, 20).
(C) State Exchequer - A claim for salary and retiral benefits shall not be non-suited merely because the employee was not paid salary from the State exchequer prior to the date of death or retirement, provided the appointment was valid and other employees of the same institution were similarly treated (Para 20).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the widow of a former teacher, challenged an order denying arrears of salary and consequential retiral benefits. The respondent authorities had rejected the claim on the grounds that the employee had never received salary from the state exchequer and was not found working during an inspection. However, the management of the institution had confirmed that the employee was appointed according to law and served continuously until his superannuation. The primary section where the employee served was attached to a Junior High School.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order was unsustainable as it ignored the evidence of legal appointment and relied on an inspection report conducted after the employee's retirement and death. It was held that since the primary section was attached to a recognized senior section, the employee was entitled to salary under the 1978 Act, and the lack of prior state payment was not a valid ground for rejection.
Issues: Whether the denial of salary and retiral benefits based on the lack of prior payment from the state exchequer and absence in a post-retirement inspection report was legally sustainable, and whether primary section teachers attached to senior sections are entitled to salary under the 1978 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that primary teachers in recognized attached sections are entitled to salary under the 1978 Act without needing separate grant-in-aid orders. The validity of the appointment is the sole criterion for benefits; thus, claims cannot be dismissed based on post-retirement inspections or the source of previous salary payments if the appointment process was lawful.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- service law
-
constitutional law
-
right to equality
- non-discrimination (Para 8)
-
right to equality
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mani Shankar, Santosh Kumar Rai, Udai Shankar Chauhan
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Prem Chand Pandey
For the Petitioner: Mani Shankar, Santosh Kumar Rai, Udai Shankar Chauhan
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Prem Chand Pandey
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: appointment valid, authority ignored documents. Respondent: appointment not verified, deceased not found working in inspection. (Para 4 , 5 , 11 , 14 , 15 )
3. Impugned order did not consider appointment documents; relied solely on inspection report after retirement and death. (Para 7 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Claim for salary and retiral benefits cannot be rejected solely because employee was not paid earlier or found in post-retirement inspection. (Para 11 , 16 , 20 )
5. Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration of appointment validity within two months. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
6. Can salary and retiral benefits be denied solely because the employee was not found in a post-retirement inspection?
No. Such a basis is unreasonable when the employee had already retired and died before the inspection; the authority must examine the appointment validity. (Para 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. Are primary school teachers attached to a Junior High School entitled to salary under the Act 1978?
Yes. Teachers of recognised primary sections attached to Junior High Schools are entitled to salary benefits under the Act, 1978, without a separate grant-in-aid order. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. What must a reviewing authority consider when directed to examine the validity of a teacher's appointment?
The authority must consider all documents of appointment submitted by the management and the claimant, and pass a reasoned order after giving a hearing. (Para 3 , 11 , 16 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Rai, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Prem Chand Pandey, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
2. Rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of Committee of Management filed today, the same is taken on record.
3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.2, by way of which, without giving any consideration to the documents submitted by the petitioner on 05.07.2017 or returning a finding to the said effect, merely by stating that the husband of the petitioner had never received the salary from the State Exchequer and as per the Principal's report that the appointment of the petitioner's husband was not in accordance with law, the claim for arrears of salary towards the services rendered by the petitioner's husband and the consequential retiral benefits has been denied.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said finding is against the evidence on record, as the Manager of the Institution vide its letter dated 25.07.2015 has specifically stated that the petitioner's husband was appointed on 15.04.1964, adhering to the due process of law and he was discharging his duties continuously since his date of appointment till his date of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2000; and thereafter he had died on 16.03.2004.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on a decision of an intra-court appeal being Special Appeal No. 352 of 2005 ( State of U.P. and others Vs. Bhrigunath Ram and others ) wherein the Division Bench of this Court while observing that, the question whether the petitioners in the writ petitions were validly appointed teachers has not been adjudicated at any stage; had given a direction to the concerned authorities to examine the appointment of the petitioners and in case appointment of the petitioners are found to be in accordance with law, salary may be paid after giving due opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order was required to be passed.
6. For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgement dated 23.03.2015 is reproduced below: -
"So far as claim of the petitioners are that they are entitled for the salary similar to the teachers of the High School and Intermediate College under 1978 Act is concerned, issue is no more res integra. It is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court referred hereinabove. Therefore, the view of learned Single Judge is liable to be affirmed. However, a question whether the petitioners in the writ-petitions are validly appointed teachers, has not been adjudicated at any stage. Therefore, we direct the authority concerned to examine the appointment of the petitioners and in case appointments of the petitioners are found to be in accordance to the law, the salary may be paid and in case if the authority concerned may arrive to the conclusion after giving opportunity to the hearing to the petitioners that they are not legally appointed, a reasoned order may be passed in this regard and in such circumstances, the petitioners may not be entitled for the salary in accordance to the law laid down by the Court.With the aforesaid directions, both the special appeals stand disposed of."
7. It appears that while taking a decision on the issue, an inspection which was made much later in time, a report was submitted that five incumbents were found to be working; and obviously the name of the petitioner's husband was not there since he had already expired by then, after having retired on 30.06.2000. The said consideration in the impugned order dated 28.05.2015 is also reproduced herein below: -
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the issue regarding the payment of salary, to the attached primary sections, is no longer res integra and it has been conclusively determined by this Court, as well as the Apex Court, that teach
