# Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board & Ors v. Tripurari Dubey & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 56
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-30
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/secretary-u-p-basic-education-board-ors-v-tripurari-dubey-ors-53168
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law-Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,1952-Chapter
VIII,
Rule
5-U.P.
Basic
Education(Teachers)
Service
Rules,1981-Entitlement to salary-Right to
Education
Act,2009-TET
QualificationNCTE
Regulations-Assistant
Teachers
officiating as Headmasters in primary and
junior high schools are entitled to receive
salary for the higher post if they have five
years of teaching experience, even in
absence of TET qualification, provided
their
appointment
preceded
the
enforcement
of
TET
requirement-The
absence of a formal mechanism from the
State to facilitate obtaining TET cannot be
used to deny salary benefits-The Right to
Education
Act,2009
does
not
automatically abolish existing posts of
Headmaster due to change in pupilteacher ratio; such abolition requires
express administrative re-determinationHowever, arrears of salary are restricted
to a maximum of three years prior to the
filing of the writ petition, in line with
Supreme Court precedent.(Para 1 to 20)

The appeals are disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the money lying in the account. Section
39(7) also has to be interpreted to hold that
the beneficial nominee cannot be said to be
the owner of the money out of the proceeds
of policy.

ii. In view of the similar
provision being interpreted in the case of
Shakti Yezdani (supra), it has to be held
that the nominee would not unsettle the
rights of the legal heirs by virtue of the
respective succession act.

iii. On harmonious interpretation
of the two provisions i.e. Insurance Act and
Hindu Succession Act, the rights conferred
by Hindu Succession Act will prevail over
the rights claimed by the nominee under
Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act, the
succession act being specific to succession
in contradiction to the Insurance Act which
is general.

36. In the light of the said, present
petition deserves to be dismissed and the
judgment passed by the revisional Court is
liable to be upheld.

37. Ordered accordingly.

38. As the issue is of seminal
importance and affecting the public at large
coupled with the fact that different High
Courts have taken different views, I deem it
appropriate to grant certificate of appeal
under Section 134-A of Constitution of
India to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 56
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024
With
Other connected cases

Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board &
Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Tripurari Dubey & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), Kushmondeya
Shahi, Pankaj Kumar Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Alok Kumar Gupta, C.S.C., Satyendra
Chandra Tripathi, Shiv Poojan Yadav

Service
Law-Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,1952-Chapter
VIII,
Rule
5-U.P.
Basic
Education(Teachers)
Service
Rules,1981-Entitlement to salary-Right to
Education
Act,2009-TET
QualificationNCTE
Regulations-Assistant
Teachers
officiating as Headmasters in primary and
junior high schools are entitled to receive
salary for the higher post if they have five
years of teaching experience, even in
absence of TET qualification, provided
their
appointment
preceded
the
enforcement
of
TET
requirement-The
absence of a formal mechanism from the
State to facilitate obtaining TET cannot be
used to deny salary benefits-The Right to
Education
Act,2009
does
not
automatically abolish existing posts of
Headmaster due to change in pupilteacher ratio; such abolition requires
express administrative re-determinationHowever, arrears of salary are restricted
to a maximum of three years prior to the
filing of the writ petition, in line with
Supreme Court precedent.(Para 1 to 20)

The appeals are disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Tripurari Dubey & anr.Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ-A No. 18228 of 2022.

2. Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh Vs St. of U.P.,
in CMWP No 23627 of 2014 (2014) 8 ADJ 617
4 All. Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board & Ors. Vs. Tripurari Dubey & Ors.
57
3. Arindam Chottopadhyay & ors.Vs St. of W. B.
& Ors(2013) 4 SCC 152 Smt Raj Kishori
Kushwaha Vs St. of U.P. & ors.Writ-A No 3863
of 2018

4. St. of M.P. Vs R.D Sharma & anr.(2022) 2
Scale 398

5. UOI & ors.Vs Tarsem, (2008) 8 SCC 648

6. Bichitrananda Behera Vs St. of Ori. &
ors.(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1307

7. Urmila Devi Pal Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2023) 6
ADJ (DB) LD

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kushmondeya Shahi,
learned counsel for the appellants, Sri V.K.
Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Alok Kumar Gupta, Sri Sudheer Rana, Sri
Kamal Kumar Kesharwani, Sri Man
Bahadur Singh, Sri Agnihotri Kumar
Tripathi, Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Sri
Anurag Shukla and Sri Pankaj Kumar Ojha,
learned counsel for the respondent-writ
petitioner.

2. This bunch of special appeal is
preferred by the U.P. Basic Education
Board through its Secretary challenging an
order passed by learned Single Judge
granting salary of the post of headmaster to
the writ petitioners who are working as
such since long. In the leading case, the
writ petitioner has been working as
headmaster since 2014, yet, the salary for
the post of headmaster has not been paid to
him. Under the orders of learned Single
Judge, such person has been held entitled to
the salary for the higher post on which he is
allowed to function. In other cases, the
situation is more or less similar and those
petitions have been disposed of in terms of
order passed by this Court in the leading
case of Tripurari Dubey and another
Versus State of U.P. and others passed in
Writ-A No. 18228 of 2022. Learned Single
Judge has returned a finding that the writ
petitioner has been discharging the duties
of headmaster since 31.05.2014 and is
otherwise qualified for appointment to the
post of headmaster. Reliance is placed upon
a Full Bench decision of this Court in Dr.
Jai Prakash Narayan Singh Vs. State of
U.P., in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
23627 of 2014, decided on 26th September
2014, 2014(8) ADJ 617 as well as the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arindam Chattopadhyay and others
Versus State of West Bengal and others,
(2013) 4 SCC 152 and the judgment of this
Court passed in Writ-A No. 3863 of 2018
(Smt. Raj Kishori Kushwaha Versus
State of U.P. and others, decided on
07.05.2014.

3. Before learned Single Judge the
claim of petitioner was resisted by the
appellants relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.D. Sharma and
another, (2022) 2 Scale 398. Having
examined the respective claim of the
parties, learned Single Judge has allowed
the writ petition and a mandamus has been
issued to pay the salary for the post of head
master alongwith arrears to the writ
petitioner from 31.05.2014.

4. The judgement of learned Single
Judge is challenged on following grounds:
(i) that the determination of post of
headmaster in the primary school in
question is regulated by the provisions of
Right to Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter
referred to as 'RTE Act 2009') and by
virtue of section 25 read with the schedule,
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the strength of teachers required in the
institution is prescribed. It is the case of the
appellants that in most of the primary
schools the strength of the students is
below 150 and in junior high schools the
strength of students is below 100 and,
therefore,
there
exists
no
post
of
headmaster and, therefore, the question of
payment of salary for the post of
headmaster does not arise. A chart in
respect of two blocks of District Gorakhpur
has been placed on record in order to
submit that in most of the institutions there
is no requirement of a post of headmaster.
It is, therefore, submitted that the direction
to pay the salary for the post of headmaster
is impermissible; (ii) that the qualification
of teachers in primary and junior schools is
prescribed by the notification issued by
NCTE. An amendment was introduced in
2011 incorporating Section 12A in the
NCTE Act, 1993, as per which for
maintaining standards of education in
schools, the NCTE may, by regulations,
determine the qualifications of persons who
have been recruited as teachers in any preprimary, upper primary, secondary, senior
secondary
or
intermediate
school
or
college. The proviso, however, stipulates
that nothing in this section shall adversely
affect the continuance of any person
recruited in such institution immediately
before the commencement of NCTE
(Amendment) Act. A notification of 12
November 2014 is also relied upon, as per
which, even for the promotion of teachers
the relevant minimum qualification as
specified in First and Second schedule are
applicable. It is, therefore, urged that the
post of headmaster mandatorily requires
passing of TET qualification which is not
possessed by the writ petitioners and,
therefore, the salary of promoted post
cannot be paid to him; (iii) it is also urged
that the principle laid down by the Full
Bench of this Court in Dr. Jai Prakash
Narayan Singh (supra) will not be
attracted in the facts of this case since the
judgment of Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan
Singh (supra) related to a university,
whereas, the statutory scheme is different
in the present case.

5. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel, on the other hand, has placed
reliance upon the judgment of Supreme
Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay and
others Versus State of West Bengal and
others, (2013) 4 SCC 152; the judgment of
this Court passed in Writ-A No. 3863 of
2018 (Smt. Raj Kishori Kushwaha
Versus State of U.P. and others, decided
on 07.05.2014, and Dr. Jai Prakash
Narayan Singh (supra) to submit that the
principle in law is well settled that where
the management promotes a person to
higher post such that the responsibility of
higher post is discharged by the employee
concerned, he would be entitled to payment
of salary for such promoted post, unless
there is any bar in the statute to such effect.
It is also submitted that the rationale and
legality of such a provision denying salary
(if at all it existed) would also be under
serious cloud. Sri Singh further submits
that all the writ petitioners were appointed
by the Board on the basis of open
competition
and
they
possess
the
qualification prescribed for the post of
assistant teacher. The writ petitioners also
possess qualification for appointment to the
post of headmaster. So far as the provision
of the NCTE Amendment Act and the
notification of 2014 is concerned, it is
stated that the writ petitioners are already in
employment and on the date of their
appointment there was no requirement of
obtaining TET qualification. It is submitted
that if the State so intended it could have
required the petitioners to undergo TET
4 All. Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board & Ors. Vs. Tripurari Dubey & Ors.
59
qualification, which has not been done by
the State. Argument is that on their own the
writ petitioners could not have secured the
TET qualification nor it was required when
they were appointed. It is, therefore, urged
that the Board/State having failed to take
any steps to equip the writ petitioners with
the TET qualification, it (Board) cannot
take this as a ground to deny the salary for
the higher post of which responsibility is
being discharged by the writ petitioners. It
is further urged that in the primary and
junior high schools run by the basic
education Board the post of headmaster has
existed since long. The post is also not
being disputed. The only argument now
advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant-State
is
that
by
virtue
of
provisions contained under the RTE Act,
lesser post would be required in the
institution.
It
is
submitted
that
the
specification of post in the schedule read
with section 25 of the RTE Act provides
for minimum number of post that are
required in an educational institution and
does not forbid continuance of posts in
excess if it existed from before. It is further
argued that the educational authorities have
not taken any exercise to re-determine the
post in accordance with RTE Act nor any
order has been passed reducing the number
of posts and, therefore, merely on the
strength of lesser requirement of post under
the RTE Act, it cannot be said that the
existing
posts
of
teachers
including
Headmaster
in
these
institutions
are
reduced or that the post of headmaster
stands abolished.

6. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the
materials on record.

7. It is undisputed that all the writ
petitioners have been appointed as assistant
teachers pursuant to open recruitment
undertaken by the Board in accordance
with the provision of U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Rules of 1981'). The service
conditions of the writ petitioners are
governed by the Rules of 1981. The
strength of service has been specified in
Rule 4. The qualification for appointment
of teachers is prescribed in Rule 8. It is,
however,
settled
that
by
virtue
of
notifications issued under the NCTE Act
the prescription of qualification of teachers
stands substituted in terms of notification
issued by NCTE. The Regulations of
NCTE protect those teachers who have
already been appointed prior to the
notification issued requiring possessing of
TET qualification.

8. Learned counsel for the Board
argues that the notification of 12th
November
2014
requires
that
the
qualification for promotion must be such as
is specified in the the NCTE Regulation.
The post of headmaster is a promotional
post under the Rules of 1981. Rule 8(3)
specifies the eligibility for promotion to the
post of headmaster. The requirement under
the Rule is at least 5 years of teaching as a
permanent assistant master of junior basic
school. The additional requirement of
possessing TET has come into being on
account of the NCTE Regulation, 2010.

9. The first submission of Sri
Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel for
the appellants, is that most of the teachers
are not possessing requisite qualification
for appointment to the post of headmaster
inasmuch as they do not possess TET
qualification.

10. Under the Rules of 1981, the
only qualification required for assistant
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
teacher for promotion to the post of
headmaster
is
five
years
teaching
experience. This is an essential condition
and unless the teacher possess such
eligibility he would be lacking the
eligibility for promotion to the post of
headmaster. Such assistant teacher who
lacks such experience would clearly not be
entitled
to
salary
for
the
post
of
headmaster. The authorities shall be at
liberty to examine the individual cases of
assistant teachers in this bunch and exclude
their claim for payment of salary of
Headmaster.

11. The only other requirement is
possessing of TET qualification. We have
already noticed that possessing TET was
not a qualification for appointment to the
post of assistant teacher at the time when
the
writ
petitioners
were
appointed.
Continuance of assistant teachers even
without TET qualification is permissible
under
the
NCTE
Regulations.
The
petitioners, who are the assistant teachers,
are already in employment of the State.
Once
the
requirement
of
TET
for
promotion is made essential under the
Regulations of 2014 then it would be for
the State to ensure that the existing teachers
in Basic schools are permitted to undergo
TET qualification. The object of NCTE
Regulation is to ensure quality education
for students in the age group of 6 to 14
years. It would thus be desirable for the
State to frame appropriate scheme so that
assistant teachers are allowed to undergo
TET qualification. Since all assistant
teachers appointed in basic schools prior to
2010 do not possess TET. These teachers
would become ineligible even for regular
promotion to the post of headmaster.
Arrangement will thus be required to be
made for such assistant teachers to acquire
TET or else only teachers appointed with
TET alone will quality for promotion.
Denial of promotion to such assistant
teachers, for no fault of theirs, would
wholly be arbitrary. Therefore, so long as
the State does not provide for mechanism
to acquire TET, it would be difficult to
resist the claim of the writ petitioners for
payment of salary of post of Headmaster
only because the State has not extended
opportunity to them for undergoing TET
qualification. It is admitted that on their
own the existing teachers cannot obtain
TET qualification. A qualification which is
dependent upon the action of the State if is
not allowed to be possessed by any existing
teacher, it would be improper to deny
entitlement of salary for the post of
headmaster even though such assistant
teachers are working in such capacity. In
case, if we accept the stand of the Board it
would only amount to putting premium on
the
default
of
the
State.
In
such
circumstances, we are of the view that the
assistant teachers who possess experience
of five years or above and are working as
headmaster would be entitled to the salary
for such post.

12. Coming to the aspect to post of
headmaster we find that the petitioners
contention that in all institutions the post of
headmaster existed from before is not
seriously disputed. What is stated is that on
account of RTE Act the requirement of
headmaster has reduced in large number of
schools because of low availability of
students. In this regard, we would like to
observe that section 25 as well as the
schedule specify the pupil-teacher ratio in
each school as per the schedule. The
mandate of section 25 as well as the
schedule to the Act of 2009 reads as under:

 "Section 25 seeks to provide for
maintenance of pupil teacher ratio, by the
4 All. Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board & Ors. Vs. Tripurari Dubey & Ors.
61
appropriate
government
and
local
authority.
An
apparent
contradiction
between this provision, which requires that
the pupil teacher ratio shall be maintained
within a period of six months, vis-à-vis the
provision under section 19 mandating that
the norms and standards prescribed in the
Schedule should be met within three years,
is proposed to be corrected through the
Amendment
Bill
introduced
in
the
Parliament.

The proviso to this section also
provides that teachers shall not be
deployed for nonacademic work, barring
those specified in section 27, viz., (i)
decennial population census, (ii) disaster
relief and (iii) elections to Parliament,
State Legislatures and Local Bodies."

13. Combined reading of section 25
read with schedule would indicate that the
norms and standards for a school are
prescribed such that minimum number of
teachers in an institution exist. The very
purpose and object of introducing RTE Act
is to ensure that quality education is
provided to the students. Such quality
education cannot be provided unless
minimum number of teachers required in
an institution are available. Section 25 read
with the schedule, however, cannot be
construed to mean that higher number of
posts already existing in such institution
would automatically stand reduced. That
would neither be the purpose nor the object
of the Act of 2009.

14. The only permissible course for
the employer in such circumstances would
be to undertake an exercise to re-determine
the post of teachers required in an
institution based upon the availability of
strength of students for a minimum period
of three years. This, however, has not been
done so far.
15. Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel
for the appellants, has placed reliance upon
a chart annexed alongwith counter affidavit
to show that as per the student strength in a
particular year the availability of post of
headmaster in a particular Block would
only be 22 out of total number of 160
institutions. This aspect of the matter
requires a little deeper examination. It is a
matter of common experience that the
strength of students in an institution may
vary from year to year. If the argument of
learned counsel for the appellant is
accepted then there would be no post of
headmaster in the junior school if the
student strength is 97 but such a post would
become admissible if the strength is 101.
Varying the strength of teachers depending
upon the strength of students each year
would create a unworkable situation.
Merely by taking student strength in a
particular year to hold that the post of
headmaster is not available would lead to
irrational consequences. Even otherwise,
we have not been apprised as to what is the
system proposed to be followed by the
State for managing its basic and primary
institutions
even in the
absence
of
Headmaster. Ordinarily, somebody would
be the supervising authority for an
educational institution. Generally, it is the
headmaster or the principal who is
authority entrusted with various task
including task of supervision and taking
decision etc. in respect of the affairs of the
institution. In the event it is to be treated
that no post of headmaster exist it would be
difficult to imagine as to how such
institution would function. Even if the
students strength is low in a particular
institution some authority would have to be
given to a person to supervise the affairs of
educational institution at the level of
institution itself. Unless the State comes up
with some credible alternative mechanism
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in which the institution could function even
without the headmaster, we would be
inclined to hold that such a post of
headmaster
would
continue
in
the
institution. It is otherwise admitted that in
all the institutions the headmaster has been
continuing for long and it is only on
account of section 25 and the schedule to
section 25 that an argument is raised by
learned counsel for the appellant that post
of headmaster ceases to exist. Having
examined the matter in the light of the
discussion aforesaid we are not inclined to
accept the argument of Sri Shahi that the
post of headmaster continuing in the basic
institutions from before would suddenly
come to an end, on account of section 25 of
RTE Act readwith the schedule. In para 14
some doubts are raised with regard to
continuance of the writ petitioners as
headmaster. We make it clear that this
aspect
of the
matter
is
not
being
adjudicated by us and we grant liberty to
the concerned educational authority to
determine the factual issue as to whether
the
petitioners
have
actually
been
continuing as headmaster of the institution
or not. Payment of salary for the post of
headmaster will be dependent upon such
examination, of individual claim, by the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari of the District
concerned.

16. Those of the assistant teachers
who are allowed to discharge the work of
headmaster
discharge
various
administrative and supervisory duties in
addition to the post of assistant teacher.
Such teachers when are allowed to
discharge additional work would be
entitled to payment of salary. Though in
somewhat different factual scenario, a
Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Jai
Prakash Narayan Singh (supra) has
observed as under:

"If no power is to be construed to
exist in a management to make an
officiating appointment, when a vacancy
arises in the office of a principal until a
regular appointment is made in accordance
with the provisions of the Commission Act,
serious prejudice would have been caused
in
the
functioning
of
educational
institutions including affiliated colleges.
There is a vital element of public interest in
the proper functioning of educational
institutions and if the cause of education is
not to suffer, some arrangement would
have to be made during the period when
there is a vacancy in the office of a
principal. The power to make an officiating
appointment is traceable to the provisions
of the Statutes of the State Universities,
analogous to Statute 10-B of the First
Statutes. Once the nature of that power is
construed as a power to make an
appointment albeit on an officiating basis
till a regularly selected candidate becomes
available, there would be no justification to
deny a claim for the payment of salary to
such a person who has been appointed on
an officiating basis. The power to make an
officiating appointment under the Statutes
of the University after the deletion of
Section 16 from the Commission Act with
effect from 22 November 1991 is preserved.
Such a provision in the Statutes would not
be inconsistent with or contrary to the
Commission Act so as to attract the
overriding provisions contained in Section
30. Where a person has been appointed as
an officiating principal until a regularly
selected candidate takes charge, this
involves an assumption of duties and
responsibilities of a greater importance
than those attaching to the post of a
teacher. The Universities Act in several
provisions, which have been noted earlier,
adverts to the duties and responsibilities
4 All. Banaras Hindu University Varanasi Vs. Dr. Bhaktiputra Rohatam & Anr.
63
which are required to be performed by a
principal. Hence, a person who is appointed
as an officiating principal under the Statutes
of the University until a regularly selected
candidate is made available, would be
entitled to the payment of salary attached to
the post of principal.

17. We are thus of the view that
headmaster's salary ought not be denied to the
assistant teachers when they are regularly
performing work on the higher post of
headmaster for the last several years.

18. Lastly, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the direction of learned
Single Judge to pay the salary for the post of
headmaster since 2014 is otherwise impermissible
in as much as no grievance was earlier raised by
the writ petitioners with regard to denial of salary
for the higher post and the writ petitions have been
filed only in the year 2022 to 2024. Reliance is
placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in
Union of India and others Versus Tarsem
Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 to contend that at best a
direction for arrears up to a period of three years
could have been issued in favour of the writ
petitioners. The judgment in Tarsen Singh
(supra) has been followed in subsequent judgment
of Supreme Court in Bichitrananda Behera
Versus State of Orissa and others, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1307. A Lucknow Bench of this
Court in Urmila Devi Pal Versus State of U.P.
and others, [2023(6) ADJ (DB)(LB)] also
followed the similar judgment.

19. We find substance in the contention
of Sri K. Shahi that the direction to pay arrears
could not have been issued in a mechanical
manner particularly when no grievance was raised
by such persons earlier. Though it is stated that
previous representations were made by the writ
petitioners but such grievance apparently was not
pressed till filing of the writ we are thus of the
view that even if the petitioners have continued for
long as headmaster the direction to pay the arrears
could only extend up to three years prior to filing
of the writ petition.

20. In view of the discussions and
deliberations held above this bunch of special
appeal stands disposed of with following
observation: (i) we grant liberty to the concerned
District Basic Education Officer to examine and
determine the factual issue as to whether the
petitioner has experience of five years and has
actually been continuing as headmaster of the
institution; (ii) if the petitioners have continued for
long as headmaster the direction to pay the arrears
would only extend up to three years prior to filing
of the writ petition; (iii) we also make it open for
the District Basic Education Officer to ensure at
the district level that only senior assistant teachers
are allowed to officiate in the educational
institution, as far as, it is possible. This would
eliminate possibility of heart burning on account
of junior assistant teachers functioning as
officiating headmaster; (iv) requisite exercise in
this regard shall be undertaken within a period of
two months and the amount in term of above
determination shall be calculated and released
without any further loss of time.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 63
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,
C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 788 of 2024

Banaras Hindu University Varanasi
 .Appellant
Versus
Dr. Bhaktipurtra Rohtam & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: