The Allahabad High Court has affirmed that government employees holding officiating charge of higher posts are entitled to the corresponding salary, even in the absence of formal regularization, where a binding precedent has already established this principle. This ruling resolves a recurring dispute affecting dozens of school administrators across Uttar Pradesh.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, 61 government school teachers, were assigned officiating charge of the post of Headmaster in various government schools under the Department of Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh. Despite discharging the full responsibilities of Headmaster, they continued to receive salary at the scale of their original posts, leading to a claim for arrears and parity with the pay of the higher position.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were assigned officiating charge of Headmaster posts between 2018 and 2023, as per administrative orders issued by the District Education Officers
- None of the petitioners were formally appointed or regularized to the post of Headmaster during the period of officiating charge
- The respondents acknowledged the petitioners performed all duties of Headmaster, including supervision of staff, academic planning, and financial management
- The petitioners submitted multiple representations between 2020 and 2025 seeking payment of Headmaster-scale salary, all of which were rejected on the ground that they were not "regularly appointed"
- The dispute is not about appointment or seniority, but solely about pay entitlement during officiating charge
Procedural History
- 2023: Individual representations filed by petitioners to District Education Officers and Block Education Officers
- 2024: Writ petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court (including WP(C) No. 4986 of 2026)
- 2025: Division Bench of this Court delivered judgment in Tripurari Dubey v. Secretary, UP Basic Education Board, Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024, holding that officiating charge holders are entitled to salary of the higher post
- 13.08.2025: Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22427 of 2025, affirming the Division Bench judgment in Tripurari Dubey
- 08.06.2026: Present writ petition heard and decided
The Parties' Positions
The petitioners contended that the principle laid down in Tripurari Dubey is binding and must be applied to them, as their factual matrix is identical. They argued that denying pay parity while requiring full performance of higher duties violates the doctrine of equal pay for equal work and Article 14 of the Constitution.
The respondents did not dispute the legal position established in Tripurari Dubey. They conceded that the Division Bench judgment is applicable and that the petitioners’ claims fall squarely within its scope.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Payment of salary at the scale of Headmaster for the entire period of officiating charge
- Interest at 9% per annum on arrears from the date each petitioner assumed charge
- A direction to the State to regularize their appointments or pay arrears as per the Tripurari Dubey judgment
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether government employees holding officiating charge of a higher post are entitled to the salary of that post, in light of a binding Division Bench judgment of this Court that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Division Bench judgment in Tripurari Dubey v. Secretary, UP Basic Education Board, which held that an employee discharged with the duties of a higher post is entitled to the salary of that post, irrespective of formal appointment. He emphasized that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP in SLP(C) No. 22427 of 2025 rendered the Division Bench judgment final and binding on all subordinate authorities. He further cited State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh to reinforce that pay parity is a constitutional imperative under Article 14 when duties are identical.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel did not contest the legal position. They acknowledged that the Tripurari Dubey judgment is binding and that the petitioners’ claims are covered by its ratio. They submitted that the State had been awaiting final judicial clarity before implementing the directive uniformly across departments.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the factual matrix of the present petitioners is indistinguishable from that of the petitioners in Tripurari Dubey. The Division Bench had clearly held that "an officer performing the duties of a higher post is entitled to the pay of that post, and the absence of formal appointment does not negate this entitlement." The Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere with this judgment by dismissing the SLP confirms its finality.
"The principle laid down in the Division Bench judgment is not merely persuasive but binding on all authorities under the State of Uttar Pradesh. To deny pay to those performing higher duties is to sanction arbitrariness and violate the equality clause."
The Court noted that the respondents had not raised any factual or legal distinction to justify non-application of the precedent. The State’s silence on the merits, coupled with its concession, left no ground for further deliberation.
The Court emphasized that administrative convenience cannot override statutory and constitutional obligations. The petitioners had been performing the full responsibilities of Headmaster for years, often without additional support or relief. Denying them the corresponding salary would amount to unjust enrichment of the State at the expense of public servants.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The respondents nos. 3 to 6 are directed to consider the claims of the petitioners for payment of salary at the scale of Headmaster for the entire period of officiating charge, in accordance with the Division Bench judgment in Tripurari Dubey v. Secretary, UP Basic Education Board and the Supreme Court’s order dated 13.08.2025. Such consideration shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The State shall also compute and pay arrears with interest at 6% per annum from the date each petitioner assumed officiating charge until actual payment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pay Parity Is Mandatory for Officiating Charge Holders
- Practitioners representing government employees in officiating charge must now cite Tripurari Dubey as binding precedent in all similar cases
- Any denial of higher pay based solely on lack of formal appointment is legally unsustainable
- Arrears must be calculated from the date of assumption of charge, not from the date of filing
State Authorities Cannot Delay Implementation Pending Policy Changes
- The Court’s six-week deadline establishes a clear compliance window
- Administrative reviews or internal circulars cannot override judicial mandates
- Failure to comply may attract contempt proceedings
Precedent Affirmation by Supreme Court Is Binding
- When a High Court judgment is affirmed by the Supreme Court through dismissal of SLP, it acquires the force of a final judgment
- Lower courts and administrative bodies must treat such judgments as authoritative, even if not formally reported
- This applies across all departments under the State, not just education
