Primary section teachers in integrated Junior High Schools are entitled to salary under Section 10 of Act 1978.

The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary Section (Classes I–V) of Smt. Ram Daiyee Balika Junior High School on July 1, 1977.

The institution was initially recognized as a primary school and later as a Junior High School in 1978; it was brought under the grant-in-aid scheme in 1980.

While the appellant’s appointment was initially approved and salary paid, payments were stopped in October 1981.

Relying on Clause 10 of a Government Circular dated May 3, 1982, the District Basic Education Officer (DBEO) and a Single Judge of the High Court rejected the appellant's claim, holding that grant-in-aid benefits were restricted to teachers of Classes VI–VIII and excluded the attached primary section.

The appellant challenged this on the grounds of discrimination and statutory entitlement.

1. Whether a teacher working in the primary section (Classes I–V) of a recognized and aided Junior High School is entitled to salary from the State Exchequer under Section 10 of the U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979.

2. Whether executive instructions (Clause 10 of the 1982 Circular) can override statutory liabilities and judicial interpretations regarding the definition of a "Junior High School".

3. Whether the 2018 amendment to the 1978 Act has retrospective application to claims arising prior to its enforcement.

Section 10 of the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978, which mandates State liability for salaries in recognized institutions.

The Constitution Bench precedent in State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Divedi (2014), which established that "Junior High School" includes Classes I–V when they are part of an integrated Basic School.

The doctrine of retrospective application of judicial interpretations as clarified in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora (2025).

The principle from Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. (2024) that the State cannot penalize an employee for administrative lapses after granting approval.

The Court reasoned that the subject institution falls under the first category identified in Pawan Kumar Divedi, where Classes I–VIII function as a single unit; thus, Section 10 of the 1978 Act applies "without any difficulty".

It held that Clause 10 of the 1982 Circular is a mere executive instruction that cannot narrow the statutory definition of an "institution" or override the Supreme Court's authoritative construction of the law.

The Court found that the Single Judge erred by failing to consider the law declared in Pawan Kumar Divedi, which clarifies what the law "has always meant" since the inception of the 1978 Act.

The Court noted that the U.P. Act No. 3 of 2018, which introduced a narrower definition of Junior High Schools, is a substantive change that applies only prospectively and cannot defeat claims for periods prior to its enactment.

The matter was remitted to the DBEO, Azamgarh, with directions to verify the appellant’s actual period of service and ensure payment of arrears from November 1981 until either the commencement of the 2018 Act or the date his service ended. The exercise must be completed within three months.