High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Birendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Prakash Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shrinath Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Heard Shri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shrinath, learned counsel for the respondent- University and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

2. Initially the petitioner was appointed as C.T. Grade Teacher in the fourth- respondent Institution and subsequently he has absorbed as L.T. Grade Teacher in the year 1995. As his services were regularized as per Section 33(B) of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board), Act 1982, as the petitioner was regularized as L.T. Grade Teacher in Hindi subsequently he was promoted as Lecturer in Hindi in the year 2011.

3. One Shri Narendra Singh was discharging as officiating principal in the Institution and when he has expressed his inability to discharge the Institution by way of letter dated 30.07.2011 authorizing the petitioner to work/ discharge his duties as officiating principal. The District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi, in his letter dated 30.07.2011 has accorded permission to the petitioner to work as officiating principal to the Institution. Though he has continued as officiating principal in the fourth- respondent- Institution but he has not been paid the salary attached to the post of Principal and based on the persuasion the District Inspector of Schools has given permission to release the salaries attached to the post of Principal from 14.07.2015.

4. As the petitioner has worked continuously from 2011 onwards as officiating principal but the respondents for no reason have denied the payment of salary of post of Principal to the petitioner till 13.07.2015.

5. Though he is entitled for the difference of salary the respondents have not made the payment and accordingly he has filed several representations finally on 03.02.2018. Despite his efforts the respondents have not considered his request, left with no option the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. To support his contention/ claim learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on order passed by this Court in Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2014 (8) ADJ 617 (Full Bench). The conclusive part of the judgment reads as follows:- "........Hence, a person who is appointed as an officiating principal under the Statutes of the University until a regularly selected candidate is made available, would be entitled to the payment of salary attached to the post of principal.

57. We, accordingly, dispose of the reference in the following terms: (i) The decision in Daljeet Singh (supra) does not lay down the correct position in law; and (ii) An officiating principal appointed under the Statutes of the University, which are pari materia to the provisions of Statute 10-B of the First Statutes would be entitled to claim the payment of salary in the regular grade of principal for the period during which he or she has worked until a regularly selected candidate has been appointed and has assumed charge of the office.

58. The reference before the Full Bench is accordingly disposed of. The proceedings shall now be placed before the regular Bench in accordance with the roster of work for disposal in the light of this judgment."

7. Further, learned counsel has also relied on latest judgment of this Court in Smt. Raj Kishori Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2024 (6) ADJ 414, the operative portion reads as follows:- "9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. P. Grover Vs State of Haryana and Anr, AIR 1983 SC 1060, has held that the petitioner was discharging her duties as Basic Education Officer on an acting basis, and therefore, she is entitled for the salary of such higher post.

10. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secy.- Cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma & Ors., AIR 1998 SCt 2909, has held that if a person is promoted to the higher post or put to officiate on that post, or stop-gap arrangement is made to place him on higher post, entitle for higher salary.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, after considering the above referred two judgments, has held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pay-scale for higher officiating post.

12. In view of the facts as stated above as well as law down by the Full Bench of this Court and various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled for higher salary even for ad-hoc basis on the post of Headmistress."

8. In view of the above full bench judgment, the issue was clarified that once the employee is officiating principal discharging his particular duty for long term they are entitled for salary of the said post.

9. Admittedly, in the instant case, as the petitioner was appointed as officiating principal vide order dated 30.07.2011 and he has continued to discharge the said function without any complaints. In fact the respondents authorities have considered and released payment attached to the said post from 30.05.2015 onwards.

10. In view of the circumstances, admittedly the petitioner has been discharging his duties hence the petitioner is entitled for the differential salary which is attached to the post of Principal from the date of initial appointment till 13.07.2015.

11. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh claim petition, within a period of one month from today, before the concerned authorities. On filing such claim petition, the authorities may consider the case of the petitioner, in view of the observations made in the above two judgments and take appropriate decision within a period of two months. It is needless to say that the petitioner is entitled for the said amount, the same may be released, in the meantime.

12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Birendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Prakash Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shrinath Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Heard Shri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shrinath, learned counsel for the respondent- University and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

2. Initially the petitioner was appointed as C.T. Grade Teacher in the fourth- respondent Institution and subsequently he has absorbed as L.T. Grade Teacher in the year 1995. As his services were regularized as per Section 33(B) of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board), Act 1982, as the petitioner was regularized as L.T. Grade Teacher in Hindi subsequently he was promoted as Lecturer in Hindi in the year 2011.

3. One Shri Narendra Singh was discharging as officiating principal in the Institution and when he has expressed his inability to discharge the Institution by way of letter dated 30.07.2011 authorizing the petitioner to work/ discharge his duties as officiating principal. The District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi, in his letter dated 30.07.2011 has accorded permission to the petitioner to work as officiating principal to the Institution. Though he has continued as officiating principal in the fourth- respondent- Institution but he has not been paid the salary attached to the post of Principal and based on the persuasion the District Inspector of Schools has given permission to release the salaries attached to the post of Principal from 14.07.2015.

4. As the petitioner has worked continuously from 2011 onwards as officiating principal but the respondents for no reason have denied the payment of salary of post of Principal to the petitioner till 13.07.2015.

5. Though he is entitled for the difference of salary the respondents have not made the payment and accordingly he has filed several representations finally on 03.02.2018. Despite his efforts the respondents have not considered his request, left with no option the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. To support his contention/ claim learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on order passed by this Court in Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2014 (8) ADJ 617 (Full Bench). The conclusive part of the judgment reads as follows:- "........Hence, a person who is appointed as an officiating principal under the Statutes of the University until a regularly selected candidate is made available, would be entitled to the payment of salary attached to the post of principal.

57. We, accordingly, dispose of the reference in the following terms: (i) The decision in Daljeet Singh (supra) does not lay down the correct position in law; and (ii) An officiating principal appointed under the Statutes of the University, which are pari materia to the provisions of Statute 10-B of the First Statutes would be entitled to claim the payment of salary in the regular grade of principal for the period during which he or she has worked until a regularly selected candidate has been appointed and has assumed charge of the office.

58. The reference before the Full Bench is accordingly disposed of. The proceedings shall now be placed before the regular Bench in accordance with the roster of work for disposal in the light of this judgment."

7. Further, learned counsel has also relied on latest judgment of this Court in Smt. Raj Kishori Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2024 (6) ADJ 414, the operative portion reads as follows:- "9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. P. Grover Vs State of Haryana and Anr, AIR 1983 SC 1060, has held that the petitioner was discharging her duties as Basic Education Officer on an acting basis, and therefore, she is entitled for the salary of such higher post.

10. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secy.- Cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma & Ors., AIR 1998 SCt 2909, has held that if a person is promoted to the higher post or put to officiate on that post, or stop-gap arrangement is made to place him on higher post, entitle for higher salary.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, after considering the above referred two judgments, has held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pay-scale for higher officiating post.

12. In view of the facts as stated above as well as law down by the Full Bench of this Court and various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled for higher salary even for ad-hoc basis on the post of Headmistress."

8. In view of the above full bench judgment, the issue was clarified that once the employee is officiating principal discharging his particular duty for long term they are entitled for salary of the said post.

9. Admittedly, in the instant case, as the petitioner was appointed as officiating principal vide order dated 30.07.2011 and he has continued to discharge the said function without any complaints. In fact the respondents authorities have considered and released payment attached to the said post from 30.05.2015 onwards.

10. In view of the circumstances, admittedly the petitioner has been discharging his duties hence the petitioner is entitled for the differential salary which is attached to the post of Principal from the date of initial appointment till 13.07.2015.

11. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh claim petition, within a period of one month from today, before the concerned authorities. On filing such claim petition, the authorities may consider the case of the petitioner, in view of the observations made in the above two judgments and take appropriate decision within a period of two months. It is needless to say that the petitioner is entitled for the said amount, the same may be released, in the meantime.

12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad