Vijay Kumar Lakhera vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Ms. Niti Rana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Xitij Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikas Pande, learned

Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission.

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the

respondent authorities to grant salary to the petitioner for the period commencing from December, 2012 to March, 2016 i.e. the period during which

the petitioner rendered his services as an Officiating Principal; and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to revise and fix the pension

of the petitioner, after grant of such salary to him for the period commencing from December, 2012 to March, 2016, during the period the petitioner

rendered his services as an Officiating Principal.

The petitioner relied upon the judgment in Kanti Prasad Dadpuri & 3 others Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others in WP(S/B) No.55 of 2011 dated

20.06.2012, wherein the Full Bench had held that, where a lecturer is appointed as an Officiating Principal in the vacant post of a Principal, which

vacancy continued for more than 30 days, and the period of officiation also exceeded 30 days, such Officiating Principals are entitled to be paid the

emoluments of the post in which they had rendered their services. A writ of mandamus was issued to the State to pay the petitioner their salary, as

applicable to the post of Principal, from the date on which they took charge as Officiating Principals in the Institutions concerned. The arrears of

salary was directed to be paid to the petitioners within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

While it is no doubt true that, in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, persons, who are posted as Officiating Principals for a period

exceeding 30 days in the vacant post of Principal, are entitled to the emoluments applicable to the post of Principal, the fact remains that the

Uttarakhand School Education (First Amendment) Regulations 2011 were notified on 18.10.2011. Attention of the Full Bench was not drawn to the

2011 Amendment to the School Education Regulations, and the Full Bench only considered the pre-amended regulations while granting, the petitioners

therein, relief.

In the present case, the petitioner claims the benefit of salary for the period commencing from December, 2012 to March, 2016 i.e. for the period

after the 2011 amended regulations came into force on 18. 10.2011. While the petitioner is not entitled to rely on the judgment of the Full Bench, in the

light of the amendment to the Regulations, the petitioner is nonetheless entitled to have his claim, to be extended the salary of a down-grade principal

in terms of the first amendment to the 2011 Regulations, considered, provided he fulfills the conditions stipulated therein.

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the first respondent furnishing details of his

having fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the 2011 amended regulations. The first respondent shall decide the petitioner’s representation in

accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and consider his claim for being extended the

emoluments of a down-grade principal, in accordance with the 2011 amended regulations, and communicate his decision to the petitioner.

Needless to state that, in case the petitioner is held entitled to be paid the salary of a down-grade principal, the said amount shall be paid to him

within a period of four weeks thereafter. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.