At the Allahabad High Court on a rather busy Tuesday morning, a modest pay dispute unexpectedly turned into a strong reaffirmation of a long-standing legal principle: if you work on a higher post, you deserve the higher pay. The division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra delivered a detailed judgment in Uma Kant Pandey vs Union of India, finally settling a grievance that has lingered for nearly two decades.
Background
The petitioner, Uma Kant Pandey, was working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) at East Central Railway Inter College, Mughalsarai. When the regular Head Master retired on 30 November 2004, Pandey was asked-through an office order dated 3 November 2004-to take charge as Teacher In-charge until a permanent replacement arrived. The order was brief, almost casual, but its consequences lasted years.
For over 3 years and 4 months, from 1 December 2004 to 6 March 2008, he handled the responsibilities of the Head Master, including administrative decisions and student-related duties. Ironically, during departmental proceedings later initiated against him, even the Railway authorities addressed him as “Head Master (Junior Wing)”, suggesting that in practice he was treated as one. Uma Kant Pandey
Yet, when he sought the higher pay attached to the Head Master post (₹6500–10500), the department refused, insisting he was never formally promoted. The Central Administrative Tribunal agreed with the department and dismissed his case in 2023.
Court’s Observations
The High Court took a very different view. Looking at the 2004 order and subsequent conduct of the department, the bench noted that Pandey wasn’t merely handling “routine” work. The chargesheet issued to him-which listed failures in timetabling, classroom supervision, and overall school management-proved he was performing the full duties of the institution’s head. “These are not tasks of a casual caretaker,” the bench indirectly hinted through its reasoning.
The court remarked pointedly:
“The bench observed, ‘The school could not have functioned for more than three years if the petitioner had only done routine work. His role was clearly that of an officiating Head Master.’”
The judges also called out the respondents for selectively interpreting the term “Teacher In-charge”, noting that the arrangement lasted too long to be treated as a mere stop-gap posting. They referred to prior rulings, including Selvaraj vs Lt. Governor of Port Blair, where the Supreme Court held that even temporary officiation at a higher post entitles an employee to the higher pay.
At one point, the bench subtly criticised the administration’s approach, calling the reliance on unproduced internal circulars “a strange approach.”
Decision
Setting aside the Tribunal’s 2023 order, the High Court held that Pandey must receive the full salary of the Head Master post for the entire period he served in that capacity, after adjusting what he has already been paid as a TGT.
Additionally, the court directed the authorities to pay 6% simple interest on the differential amount from 11 October 2010 (the date he filed the O.A.) until the date of actual payment. The entire exercise must be completed within two months of receiving the certified order.
And with that, after 19 years of waiting, the dispute finally reaches a close.
Case Title: Uma Kant Pandey vs Union of India & Others
Case No.: Writ-A No. 6079 of 2025
Case Type: Service Matter – Writ Petition (Salary/Payscale Entitlement)
Decision Date: 11 November 2025
