This intra-court appeal addresses whether a teacher appointed in the primary section (Classes I to V) of an integrated Junior High School is entitled to salary from the State Exchequer under Section 10 of the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. The appellant, an assistant teacher appointed in 1977 and approved in 1980, had his salary abruptly stopped in October 1981 following executive circular instructions restricting salary disbursements strictly to teachers of Classes VI to VIII. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the appeal, setting aside the learned Single Judge’s dismissal and the District Basic Education Officer’s rejection order. Relying heavily on the Constitution Bench precedent in State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Divedi, the Court held that schools running Classes I to VIII as a single integrated unit fall under the statutory protection of Section 10, rendering executive circular exclusions legally unsustainable.
- Factual Background:
- The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the primary section of Smt. Ram Daiyee Balika Junior High School, Azamgarh, on July 1, 1977.
- The institution received recognition as a Junior High School effective July 1, 1977, and was brought under the grant-in-aid scheme in 1980, with the District Basic Education Officer formally approving the appellant’s appointment on November 3, 1980.
- After paying his salary until October 1981, authorities halted disbursements to primary section teachers, prompting decades of litigation, multiple writ petitions, and a previous remand by a Division Bench.
- A learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s subsequent writ petition on April 29, 2013, citing Clause 10 of the Director of Education’s Circular dated May 3, 1982, which excluded primary teachers from salary payment under the 1978 Act.
- Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that his appointment had been duly approved by the competent statutory authority in 1980 prior to the 1982 executive circular, and that executive instructions cannot override statutory liability.
- It was contended that a similarly situated colleague in the exact same institution, Smt. Gayatri Rai, had successfully secured salary disbursements through final judicial orders that were upheld up to the Supreme Court.
- Placing reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Divedi and Singasan Sharma v. State of U.P., the appellant maintained that integrated institutions imparting education up to Class VIII constitute a single unit under the Board of Basic Education, making Section 10 of the 1978 Act fully applicable to primary teachers.
- State’s Submissions:
- The State-respondents defended the impugned judgment and the District Basic Education Officer’s order, arguing that the 1982 circular explicitly restricted grant-in-aid salaries to Classes VI to VIII.
- They submitted that the payment made to Smt. Gayatri Rai was a product of isolated judicial intervention and could not serve as a general precedent.
- Furthermore, they pointed to subsequent statutory amendments introduced via the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 and U.P. Act No. 3 of 2018 to emphasize a strict legislative distinction between Junior Basic Schools (Classes I to V) and Junior High Schools (Classes VI to VIII).
- Legal Analysis & Findings:
- Scope of Section 10 of the 1978 Act: Citing the Constitution Bench ruling in Pawan Kumar Divedi, the Court noted that recognized Junior High Schools running Classes I to VIII as an integrated unit fall squarely within the first category where Section 10 applies without difficulty.
- Supremacy of Statutory Provisions over Executive Circulars: The Court held that Clause 10 of the 1982 executive circular, which attempted to narrow the definition of “Junior High School,” cannot override or restrict the statutory interpretation laid down by the Supreme Court.
- Retrospective Application of Judicial Declarations: Clarifying that Supreme Court judgments interpreting a statute declare what the law has always meant, the Constitution Bench ruling governs pending lis, whereas subsequent 2018 legislative amendments apply purely prospectively and do not extinguish pre-amendment claims.
- Verification of Actual Service: While establishing the legal entitlement of primary teachers in such integrated schools, the Court observed that records lacked clear pleadings regarding whether the appellant actively taught throughout the entire disputed timeframe or when his service terminated.
- Final Order:
- The special appeal was allowed, and the judgment dated April 29, 2013, along with the order dated April 11, 2013, were set aside.
- The matter was remitted to the District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh, to verify service and attendance records within three months.
- If found to have worked, the appellant is to be paid arrears of salary from November 1981 up to the commencement of U.P. Act No. 3 of 2018 or the date his service lawfully ended.
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 116
Surendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 others (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 116 click here to view full text of judgment
