(S/S) Kunwar Singh Negi … v. and Another Present

2023, stands disposed of, accordingly.

2. The petitioner claims salary for a period between of

01.03.2005 and 31.07.2016, when he worked as Lecturer-History in Janta Inter College, Kathoor Hindav, Tehri Garhwal (“the college”). He also challenges order dated 25.08.2022, passed by the respondent no.2, The Director School Education, by which the representation that was made by the petitioner, has been rejected

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows”- (i) The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the college. On 30.06.1995, the post of Principal fell vacant in that college and the Senior Post of Lecturer History, Mr. Karan Singh Rawat was promoted as the Principal of the college with 2 effect from 01.11.1995. Thereafter, the post of Lecturer-History in the college was to be filled up, for which applications were invited and petitioner was appointed as Lecturer-History in the college. The appointment was approved by the Chief Education Officer on 17.07.1996. (ii) Till November, 2003, the college was a recognized inter college, but, thereafter, it was provincialised on 04.12.2003, the institution was taken over by the Government. (iii) The petitioner worked till 31.07.2016 as Lecturer- History, but he was not paid salary, which is claimed by the petitioner by means of the instant petition.

5. The respondent no.2 filed counter affidavit. It is not disputed that the petitioner worked as Lecturer-History till his retirement. But, according to the State, after promotion of Karan Singh Rawat as the Principal, the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Lecturer-History in the college, the appointment was approved on 17.07.1996 by the District Inspector of School, Tehri Garhwal.

6. According to the State, after provincialisation, Karan Singh Rawat, who was given ad hoc appointment before provincialisation as the Principal, was given temporary appointment in the college on the post of Lecturer-History. The petitioner was never given appointment on the post of Lecturer-History, but the Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri-Garhwal, vide order dated 05.03.2008, had given temporary appointment to the 3 petitioner in the government services on his original post as Junior Assistant.

7. It is the case of the respondents that Karan Singh Rawat, who was given promotion on the post of Principal had filed a Writ Petition (S/B) No.167 of 2010, in this Court, which was decided on

02.04.2014, when the Court passed the following order:- “Considering the fact that the post of Principal is a direct recruitment post, we cannot issue a direction for regularization of the petitioners in the said post. However, having regard to the mandate of the law governing the subject, we direct the State to pay officiating allowance i.e. the difference between the salary of the petitioners as Lecturers and the salary of the Principal for the period of the petitioners were asked to discharge the duties of Principal of the provincialised institutions, if not already paid. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.”

8. This order was challenged in SLP No. 18725-18726/2014 of 2014, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was decided on

19.01.2015, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “A direction was issued to the State of Uttarakhand on the concession of the State Government. The State Government was required to pay officiating allowance, if the same had not already been paid. It does not lie in the mouth of respondents, that the impugned order, adversely affected the rights of the petitioners.”

9. It is the case of the respondents that Karan Singh Rawat was never regularized on the post of the Principal; he was appointed as Lecturer-History; he superannuated as such on

31.08.2011.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has worked on the post of Lecturer-History till his retirement on 31.07.2016. He was given appointment on the post of Junior Assistant on 05.03.2008, but he has not worked on that position. He worked like Lecturer-History. He was not paid salary for either of the posts. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner is 4 entitled to salary to the post of Lecturer-History on which he worked for all those years.

11. Learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner was never appointed as Lecturer-History. On that post, one Karan Singh Rawat was already working and he was given appointment, who worked as the Principal; the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 05.03.2008, by way of which he was given appoint on the post of Junior Assistant. Therefore, he is entitled to get salary for that post only.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier also, the petitioner had filed WPSS No.1100 of 2022 before this Court, seeking salary, which was decided by the order of this Court dated 22.06.2022, when the Court passed the following order:- “Without going into merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper that ends of justice will be met if petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the Director, Secondary Education, Dehradun for redressal of his grievance. If petitioner makes such a representation within three weeks from today, decision thereupon will be taken by the said authority within four months from the date of receipt of representation along with a certified copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.”

13. It is after this order, a representation was filed by the petitioner, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

14. In the impugned order, the respondent no.2, Director, School Education, has observed that on one post only one person could be appointed. Therefore, before provincialisation and even after that, Karan Singh Rawat was appointed as Lecturer History, and the petitioner was appointed temporarily as Senior Assistant on 05.03.2008.

15. When Karan Singh Rawat was initially given charge of the Principal in the year 1996, the petitioner was appointed as 5 Lecturer-History. That appointment was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools. After provincialisation, Karan Singh Rawat was given appointment on the post of Lecturer-History alone, though he was working as the In-charge Principal, but he was working as the Principal. Fact remains that the petitioner continued working as Lecturer-History.

16. The petitioner was appointed against the post of Senior Assistant on 05.03.2008. Even that salary could have been paid to the petitioner, which was not paid. The petitioner has worked on the position of Lecturer History. Therefore, he is entitled to get remuneration for that.

17. Since the petitioner’s appointment was confirmed on

05.03.2008, on the post of Senior Assistant, respondents may be directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2016.

18. The respondents may also be directed to pay teaching allowance, i.e. the difference between the salary of the petitioner as Senior Assistant and the salary of Lecturer-History for the period when the petitioner was asked to discharge the duties as the Lecturer-History. Accordingly, the writ petitioner deserves to be allowed.

17. The writ petition is allowed.

18. The respondents are directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the post of Senior Assistant for a period from

01.03.2005 to 31.01.2016. The respondents are also directed to pay teaching allowance, i.e. the difference between the salary of the petitioner as Senior Assistant and the salary of the Lecturer-History 6 for the period in which the petitioner was asked to discharge the duties of the Lecturer-History in the college. Ravi Bisht (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

05.04.2025

2023, stands disposed of, accordingly.

2. The petitioner claims salary for a period between of

01.03.2005 and 31.07.2016, when he worked as Lecturer-History in Janta Inter College, Kathoor Hindav, Tehri Garhwal (“the college”). He also challenges order dated 25.08.2022, passed by the respondent no.2, The Director School Education, by which the representation that was made by the petitioner, has been rejected

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows”- (i) The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the college. On 30.06.1995, the post of Principal fell vacant in that college and the Senior Post of Lecturer History, Mr. Karan Singh Rawat was promoted as the Principal of the college with 2 effect from 01.11.1995. Thereafter, the post of Lecturer-History in the college was to be filled up, for which applications were invited and petitioner was appointed as Lecturer-History in the college. The appointment was approved by the Chief Education Officer on 17.07.1996. (ii) Till November, 2003, the college was a recognized inter college, but, thereafter, it was provincialised on 04.12.2003, the institution was taken over by the Government. (iii) The petitioner worked till 31.07.2016 as Lecturer- History, but he was not paid salary, which is claimed by the petitioner by means of the instant petition.

5. The respondent no.2 filed counter affidavit. It is not disputed that the petitioner worked as Lecturer-History till his retirement. But, according to the State, after promotion of Karan Singh Rawat as the Principal, the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Lecturer-History in the college, the appointment was approved on 17.07.1996 by the District Inspector of School, Tehri Garhwal.

6. According to the State, after provincialisation, Karan Singh Rawat, who was given ad hoc appointment before provincialisation as the Principal, was given temporary appointment in the college on the post of Lecturer-History. The petitioner was never given appointment on the post of Lecturer-History, but the Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri-Garhwal, vide order dated 05.03.2008, had given temporary appointment to the 3 petitioner in the government services on his original post as Junior Assistant.

7. It is the case of the respondents that Karan Singh Rawat, who was given promotion on the post of Principal had filed a Writ Petition (S/B) No.167 of 2010, in this Court, which was decided on

02.04.2014, when the Court passed the following order:- “Considering the fact that the post of Principal is a direct recruitment post, we cannot issue a direction for regularization of the petitioners in the said post. However, having regard to the mandate of the law governing the subject, we direct the State to pay officiating allowance i.e. the difference between the salary of the petitioners as Lecturers and the salary of the Principal for the period of the petitioners were asked to discharge the duties of Principal of the provincialised institutions, if not already paid. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.”

8. This order was challenged in SLP No. 18725-18726/2014 of 2014, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was decided on

19.01.2015, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “A direction was issued to the State of Uttarakhand on the concession of the State Government. The State Government was required to pay officiating allowance, if the same had not already been paid. It does not lie in the mouth of respondents, that the impugned order, adversely affected the rights of the petitioners.”

9. It is the case of the respondents that Karan Singh Rawat was never regularized on the post of the Principal; he was appointed as Lecturer-History; he superannuated as such on

31.08.2011.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has worked on the post of Lecturer-History till his retirement on 31.07.2016. He was given appointment on the post of Junior Assistant on 05.03.2008, but he has not worked on that position. He worked like Lecturer-History. He was not paid salary for either of the posts. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner is 4 entitled to salary to the post of Lecturer-History on which he worked for all those years.

11. Learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner was never appointed as Lecturer-History. On that post, one Karan Singh Rawat was already working and he was given appointment, who worked as the Principal; the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 05.03.2008, by way of which he was given appoint on the post of Junior Assistant. Therefore, he is entitled to get salary for that post only.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier also, the petitioner had filed WPSS No.1100 of 2022 before this Court, seeking salary, which was decided by the order of this Court dated 22.06.2022, when the Court passed the following order:- “Without going into merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper that ends of justice will be met if petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the Director, Secondary Education, Dehradun for redressal of his grievance. If petitioner makes such a representation within three weeks from today, decision thereupon will be taken by the said authority within four months from the date of receipt of representation along with a certified copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.”

13. It is after this order, a representation was filed by the petitioner, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

14. In the impugned order, the respondent no.2, Director, School Education, has observed that on one post only one person could be appointed. Therefore, before provincialisation and even after that, Karan Singh Rawat was appointed as Lecturer History, and the petitioner was appointed temporarily as Senior Assistant on 05.03.2008.

15. When Karan Singh Rawat was initially given charge of the Principal in the year 1996, the petitioner was appointed as 5 Lecturer-History. That appointment was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools. After provincialisation, Karan Singh Rawat was given appointment on the post of Lecturer-History alone, though he was working as the In-charge Principal, but he was working as the Principal. Fact remains that the petitioner continued working as Lecturer-History.

16. The petitioner was appointed against the post of Senior Assistant on 05.03.2008. Even that salary could have been paid to the petitioner, which was not paid. The petitioner has worked on the position of Lecturer History. Therefore, he is entitled to get remuneration for that.

17. Since the petitioner’s appointment was confirmed on

05.03.2008, on the post of Senior Assistant, respondents may be directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2016.

18. The respondents may also be directed to pay teaching allowance, i.e. the difference between the salary of the petitioner as Senior Assistant and the salary of Lecturer-History for the period when the petitioner was asked to discharge the duties as the Lecturer-History. Accordingly, the writ petitioner deserves to be allowed.

17. The writ petition is allowed.

18. The respondents are directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the post of Senior Assistant for a period from

01.03.2005 to 31.01.2016. The respondents are also directed to pay teaching allowance, i.e. the difference between the salary of the petitioner as Senior Assistant and the salary of the Lecturer-History 6 for the period in which the petitioner was asked to discharge the duties of the Lecturer-History in the college. Ravi Bisht (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

05.04.2025