# Malti Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1005 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-01-07 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 19604 of 2025 - **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/malti-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53804 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 1 All. Malti Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1005 23. In aforesaid circumstances, Court is of the view that preconditions mentioned in Section 18 of the Act of 1982 has to be complied with being mandatory and only thereafter, such ad-hoc promotee on the post of Principal or Head Master would be entitled for salary of said post. 24. Accordingly, all writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that D.I.O.S. concerned will examine the facts of each case that in case preconditions of Section 18 that Management had notified the vacancy and it remained vacant for two months and ad-hoc promotion was made, then only such ad-hoc promotee will be entitled for salary of the post of Principal. 25. In case vacancy was not notified, such ad-hoc Principal will not be entitled for payment of salary on the post of Principal or Head Master and it is directed that in such case college will notify the vacancy within four weeks from the date of present judgment. In an event, even though the conditions referred above was not complied with and such ad-hoc Principal were paid salary of the post of Principal or Head Master is paid, it shall be stopped from the date of present judgment, 26. Now U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board 2023 and Rules therein namely Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Rules, 2023 are being enacted and are enforced and Act of 1982 is now repealed. There is no provision in Act, 2023 of Ad-hoc Principals or Head Masters. As held above there is no provision to grant salary of post of Principal to Ad-hoc Principal under the provisions of Act of 1921 and its Regulations, therefore, its legal consequence would follow. An argument that after ad-hoc vacancy is filled by promotion and such promotee have discharged duties with higher responsibility, therefore also, they are entitled for salary of promoted post especially when it is for more than a year is also unacceptable since it would be against the provisions, as discussed above. 27. The Court takes note that in other cases, salary if already paid to earlier appointed ad-hoc Principal or Head Master, it is directed that it shall not be recovered but shall not be paid from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. 28. All writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 1005 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. Writ A No. 19604 of 2025 Malti Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration 1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (1) Permissibility of stopping the family pension, granted earlier. Headnotes (A) Service law - Family pension - Petitioner's husband was retired from the post of Assistant Accountant and was expired afterwards - Earlier family pension was granted, but subsequently stopped - Family pension claimed - Permissibility. (E-1) Held : The writ petition is being disposed off granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, who shall on the receipt of the same within a period of two weeks, proceed to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. [Para 6] List of Keywords Family pension, Comprehensive representation. Case Arising From Stopping the family pension. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant : Manish Kumar Kashyap and Virendra Pal Singh. Advs. for the Respondents : Standing Counsel. (Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.) 1. Heard Sri Virendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the husband of the writ petitioner was an employee in State Government, working on the post of Assistant Accountant, retired on 31.02.2020 and expired on 14.06.2020. The writ petitioner claims to release of the family pension which was granted on 16.07.2020 which has been stopped by the authority since November, 2024 till date. 3. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim of the writ petitioner needs adjudication at the first instance by the second respondent, District Magistrate, Budaun. 5. To such a submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same. 6. Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, who shall on the receipt of the same within a period of two weeks, proceed to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. In case the second respondent is of the opinion that the matter is to be decided by some other authorities then the papers shall be transmitted to the same. 1 All. Ramjage & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors. 1007 7. Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 1007 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Writ B No. 11 of 2026 Ramjage & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration Whether the suit proceedings, where the rights of the parties were not decided, can be of any consequence or entitling the petitioner to raise the plea of estoppel in deciding the objection u/s 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act? Headnotes A. Land Reform Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950: Section(s) 117, 229 B; U.P. Land Revenue Act: Section 34/35; U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Acts 1953: Section(s) 9A(2), 49 - Merely by dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability, without going into the merits of the case, without returning any finding on any issue cannot benefit the other party in any subsequent litigation nor can he claim that mere dismissal of such suit proceedings would vest any right in the opposite party. (Para 22) The findings returned by all the three authorities w.r.t. effect of the order dated 4.4.1978 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. In a suit proceedings initiated u/s 229 B the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner w.r.t. maintainability of the suit was upheld. The suit was thrown out at the threshold on the very ground of maintainability and the court did not adjudicate upon the aspect of declaration sought by the private respondents. Once the rights of the parties were not decided in the suit proceedings then the said proceedings cannot be of any consequence or entitling the petitioner to raise the plea of estoppel in deciding the objection u/s 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In case, the suit has been decreed or rejected on merits after taking evidence and deciding the rival contentions of the parties then certainly the finding returned in the said proceedings would have had a bearing on the proceedings u/s 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. (Para 20, 21) B. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided the entire controversy and has considered various evidence, which aren't available on record by which it can be established that Angenu is the original recorded tenure holder of the entire property while finding returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that undisputedly the entire property was recorded in his name initially. Neither any evidence has been considered by him but he has only stated that this aspect of the matter is undisputed. (Para 23)