Smt. Kusum Sharma vs D.I.O.S. and Another

Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

This petition has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the difference of the salary to the Petitioner of the post of Principal vis a vis of Lecturer. Further prayer has been made for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.7.2001 by means of which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected.

The Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer (Art) on 01.02.1967 and thereafter she was promoted on officiating basis on the post of Principal with effect from 02.07.1991. The Petitioner continued to discharge her duties as officiating Principal up to 30.6.1999, on which date she retired.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since Petitioner has continuously worked on the post of Principal, she is entitled for difference of salary of the post of Principal vis a vis of Lecturer. Although the Petitioner has been continuously paid the salary of the post of Lecturer but the salary of the post of Principal has never been paid to her. He further submits that law in this regard has been settled that if a person is discharging her duties as officiating Principal, she is entitled for the salary of the post of Principal. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the case Smt. P. Grover Vs. State of Haryana and Another, He also submits that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has stated that papers regarding promotion on the post of officiating Principal were not forwarded by the management to the D.I.O.S. for approval.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parities, I find that the Petitioner has continuously discharged her duties on the post of officiating Principal w.e.f. 2.7.1991 to 30.6.1999 and there was no break and neither any other Principal has worked on the said post. The apex Court in the identical situation in the case of Smt. P. Grover (Supra) has ruled to the following effect:

Our attention was not invited to any rule which provides that promotion on an acting basis would not entitle the officer promoted to the pay of the post. In the absence of any rule justifying such refusal to pay to an officer promoted to a higher post the salary of such higher post (the validity of such a rule would be doubtful if it existed). We must hold that Smt. Grover is entitled to be paid the salary of District Education Officer from the date she was promoted to the post, that is, July 19, 1976, until she retired from service on August 31, 1980.

Having considered the dictum of the law laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid case, the Petitioner is entitled to the difference of salary of the post of Principal vis a vis to the post of Lecturer which has not been paid to her when she worked as Principal with effect from 2.7.1991 to 30.6.1999. Mere non approval will not take away the right of the Petitioner for payment of salary for the post of Principal. As she has continuously been working on the post of Principal and she has never been deprived of the post of Principal at any point of time, the petition is liable to be allowed.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 31.7.2001. The opposite parties are directed to release the difference of salary of the Petitioner for the post of Principal with effect from 2.7.1991 to 30.6.1999 within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the D.I.O.S. concerned.