BEER SINGH CHAUHAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:Â Â

a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the respondents to grant the salary of the post of Principal to the

petitioner as per the provisions of Regulation â€" 2(3) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulation 2(3) of Chapter II framed under the

Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006, as the petitioner worked on the post of Officiating Principal with effect from 01.12.2011 to 31.01.2015.

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding / directing the respondents to re-fix the pension of the petitioner after

granting the benefit of salary of the post of Principal and release the arrears of difference of salary forthwith alongwith interest.â€​

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (LT Grade). He was promoted as Lecturer in 2011 in the Janta Intermediate College, District Pauri

Garhwal. Thereafter, on 30.11.2011, the Committee of Management passed a Resolution for officiating appointment of the petitioner as officiating

Principal. There was a ban on direct recruitment. The Management having left with no other option, convened a meeting and passed the

Resolution. Petitioner was appointed as such. He took charge on 01.12.2011 and worked as Principal till his retirement. The then District

Education Officer duly approved the appointment of the petitioner and attested the signature of the petitioner as officiating Principal. After his

retirement on 31.01.2015, the petitioner preferred a representation stating that, since the petitioner has worked on the post of Principal from

01.12.2011 to 31.01.2015 for more than 30 days, he is entitled to salary of Principal under Chapter II Regulation 2(3) of the Uttarakhand School

Education Act, 2006. He refers to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in similar matter in the case of Kanti Prasad Dadpuri & 3 others vs.

State of Uttarakhand & others, reported in 2012 (1) U.D. 589. It is pointed out that the Special Leave Petition against the said judgment was

dismissed by the Apex Court. Petitioner made further representation on 21.07.2017. It was forwarded by the fourth respondent to the second

respondent; but, till now, no action has been taken. Accordingly, petitioner is before us.

Counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit have been filed. We have heard Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

There is, in fact, no dispute as such that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in Kanti Prasad

Dadpuri & 3 others vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, reported in 2012 (1) U.D. 589. Therefore, there is no reason why we should deny the

benefit of the payment of salary of the officiating Principal to the petitioner for the period he had officiated as Principal. The petitioner has in fact,

approached this Court after making representations, as noted. Â

In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. We direct that the first respondent will pay the salary for the post of Principal to the petitioner

for the period 01.12.2011 to 31.01.2015. This shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this

judgment. We also direct that the respondents will re-fix the pension of the petitioner after giving the benefit of salary. Â