On November 11, 2025, the Allahabad High Court ruled that if an employee is asked to take on a higher position in an acting or temporary capacity, the employer can’t refuse to pay the higher salary associated with that position for the time the employee worked in it. The court said that denying the higher salary would go against the public policy and is also forceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.This judgement arose from a case involving Mr. Pandey, who was serving as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in a regular, substantive role in a college in Uttar Pradesh. As the Head Master (Junior Wing) was set to superannuate on November 30, 2004, he was ordered to take on the role of ‘teacher-in-charge’ on November 3, 2004. He held this position till March 6, 2008, when a new Head Master was appointed.

Mr. Pandey raised concerns about not receiving the higher pay-scale that should have been given for the post of Head Master (Junior Wing). However, his complaints went unanswered. Instead the college issued him a charge-sheet on August 13, 2005, claiming he had not shown complete integrity towards his duties as Head Master (Junior Wing). Eventually, he was cleared of these charges but the higher salary was still not paid. Consequently, he decided to take a legal action.

The college contested Mr. Pandey’s claim for a higher salary at the Tribunal, arguing that he was not officially promoted to the post of Head Master (Junior Wing) and there were no departmental rules or legal provisions that entitled him to the salary for that role.

On November 11, 2025 Mr. Pandey won the case in Allahabad High Court. He was represented by Advocate Amardeo Singh.

Allahabad High Court analyses the facts of the case

The Allahabad High Court said in its judgement (WRIT – A No. – 6079 of 2025) that it is not in dispute that on account of the Head Master, namely, having superannuated (retired) on November 30, 2004, Mr. Pandey who was working as Trained Graduate Teacher, was asked vide office order dated November 3, 2004, to take over the charge from the Head Master and work as the teacher-in-charge till posting of a permanent incumbent.Mr. Pandey’s working as the teacher-in -charge w.e.f. 01.12.2004 to 06.03.2008 is not disputed. The dispute raised is only as regards the interpretation of the office order dated 03.11.2004 vis-a-vis the status which he enjoyed during the period w.e.f. 01.12.2004 to 06.03.2008.

Allahabad HC: During departmental proceedings he was indicated as head master

The Allahabad High Court said that a significant aspect which is borne out from the record is that when the petitioner (Mr. Pandey) was subjected to departmental proceedings, in an office memorandum dated August 12, 2005, his designation was clearly indicated as ‘Head Master’ (Junior Wing)’ and he was asked to submit representation against the action proposed to be taken by the respondents (college).

The Allahabad High Court said that though no punishment was given to the petitioner (Mr. Pandey) in the departmental proceedings, however, as stands reflected from an order dated December 22, 2005 issued by the Appellate Authority mentioning that the petitioner (Mr. Pandey) should improve his conduct, what is significant to observe in relation to the departmental proceedings is that right from initiation of the same till the appeal of the petitioner was allowed, he was continuously referred as Head Master/Principal of Junior Wing.

Allahabad High Court said: “Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents did not treat the petitioner’s working in the capacity of Head Master/Principal of Junior Wing.”

Allahabad HC: College can’t use teacher-in-charge word to associate someone working as a head master

The Allahabad High Court said that so far as the submissions made on behalf of the respondents (college) that activities done by the petitioner w.e.f. December 1, 2004 to March 6, 2008 were only of routine nature, the charges/allegations levelled against the petitioner (Mr. Pandey), as noted above, clearly indicates that the same cannot be treated as a routine work.

Allahabad High Court said: “Rather the same were associated with the duties of a person, who was working as a full fledged Head of the institution and not merely in the capacity of a Teacher Incharge. Words ‘Teacher Incharge’, as a matter of fact, are being sought to be read by the respondents in the manner these words suit to them and not in the correct perspective reflected from the facts and circumstances of the present case”

The Allahabad High Court said that for the period for which the petitioner (Mr. Pandey) has claimed relief of salary is 3 years 4 months and the indications made in the office order dated November 3, 2004 clearly reflect that the respondents (college) intended to take work from the petitioner (Mr. Pandey) till posting of a permanent incumbent as Head Master and, therefore, it cannot be accepted that the nature of charge given to the petitioner (Mr. Pandey) as well as his working on the post was, in any manner, below those that are associated with the post of Head Master.

Allahabad High Court said: “The School could not have been functional for a period of over three years, if the petitioner had only done the routine work. Therefore, the working of the petitioner (Mr. Pandey) for such a long period of 3 years 4 months can safely be said to be in officiating capacity and not in any other capacity as suggested by the respondents (college).”

The Allahabad High Court said that reference to certain office memoranda or administrative instructions made in the counter affidavit without annexing the same, is a strange approach adopted by the respondents (college) and, even otherwise, instructions 646 and 648(e), as referred in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, only indicate that no special pay should ‘normally’ be granted to a railway servant who is required to hold an additional charge of a post ‘which was not filled up before’ and that No Dual Charge Allowances is admissible for discharge of ‘routine duties’ of an additional post.

The Allahabad High Court said that the present case is not the one where the petitioner (Mr. Pandey) was given additional charge of a post ‘which was not filled up before’, rather it is a case where the post of Head Master had fallen vacant on account of his superannuation.

Allahabad High Court said: “Further, the duties performed by the petitioner were not of ‘routine nature’ as already discussed above. Therefore, defence of the respondents based upon the instructions 646 and 648(e) has no substance in the facts of the present case.”

Case law cited: The Co-ordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Tripurari Dubey, has dealt with somewhat identical circumstances and held that Head Master’s salary ought not to be denied to the Assistant Teachers where they were regularly performing work of higher post of Head Master for the last several years.

The Supreme Court, in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh vs. Hari Om Sharma, 1998 (5) SCC 87, has held that if a person is promoted to the higher post or put to officiate on that post or a stop-gap arrangement is made to place him on the higher post, denial of salary to him for a higher post would be contrary to law and also against public policy and even any contract or agreement containing such a stipulation would be unenforceable in law in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act.

Allahabad High Court judgement

The Allahabad High Court said that in view of above discussion, they are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not thoroughly examined the record of proceedings and has cursorily dismissed the O.A. on the ground that no rule or provision was shown indicating entitlement of the petitioner to get a salary for Head Master.

Judgement:

●Accordingly, order dated 18.12.2023 cannot be sustained and the petitioner (Mr. Pandey) is held entitled to get the reliefs claimed by him before the Tribunal.

●As the petitioner has already received salary for the period w.e.f. 01.12.2004 to 06.03.2008 admissible to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, he is found entitled to receive difference amount of salary admissible for the post of Head Master and Trained Graduate Teacher.

●Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.

●The order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1626 of 2010 is hereby set aside.

●Resultantly, the O.A. is also allowed and the respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs 6500-10500 for the period w.e.f. 01.12.2004 to 06.03.2008 after adjusting the salary he has already received as Trained Graduate Teacher.

●He shall also be paid simple interest on the difference of pay at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the O.A., i.e. 11.10.2010 till the date on which actual payment is made to him.

●The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of an authentic copy of this order is served upon the respondents.