IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 45 of 2010 State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Appellants. Versus Suresh Chandra Sharma and another .………. Respondents. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Date of decision: 15-04-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Respondent No. 1 was holding the post of senior-most teacher in the lecturer grade at the Hindu National Inter College, Dehradun, when the Principal of the aforesaid institute, namely, Sri R.P. Sharma, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2004. Respondent No. 1 claimed promotion on an officiating basis to the vacancy created by Sri R.P. Sharma. Rather than allowing officiating charge to respondent No. 1, one Sri Madhu Shudhan Dutt was appointed as Principal against the vacancy created by Sri R.P. Sharma. This action of the authorities was assailed by the respondent No. 1 by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 982 of 2004. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 15.02.2006. In compliance with the direction issued by this Court, the District Education Officer, Dehradun, vide his order dated 08.04.2006, allowed officiating promotion as Principal to respondent No. 1. Based on the aforesaid order dated 08.04.2006, respondent No. 1 commenced to discharge duties of the post of officiating Principal w.e.f. 10.04.2006. Having rendered officiating service as Principal uninterruptedly till date, respondent No. 1 claimed salary in the scale of the post of Principal for the period during which he had rendered service. As such, when the prayer made by respondent No. 1 to the authorities was not acceded to, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2 1155 of 2008. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide an order dated 13.07.2009. 2. Through the instant special appeal, the appellants have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.07.2009, vide which Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1155 of 2008 was disposed of. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has acknowledged the factual position depicted in the foregoing paragraphs. It is acknowledged, that respondent No. 1 came to be promoted on an officiating basis as Principal by an order issued by the District Education Officer, Dehradun dated 08.04.2006. It is also acknowledged, that consequent upon passing of the aforesaid order, respondent No. 1 has been discharging duties of the post of Principal uninterruptedly w.e.f. 10.04.2006. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is, that respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed salary of the scale of post of Principal. 4. We have considered the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. In order to grant the benefit of wages of the post of Principal to respondent No. 1, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on Regulation-3, framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Regulation-3 thereof is being extracted hereunder: - “Where the temporary vacancy in the post of Head of Institution is for a period not exceeding thirty days, the senior-most teacher in the highest grade may be allowed to work as acting head of institution, but he shall not be entitled to pay in a scale higher than the scale of pay in which he is drawing salary as such teacher.” A perusal of the aforesaid Regulation reveals, firstly that, the senior-most teacher in the highest grade may be allowed to work as acting head of the institution. It is under this Regulation, that respondent No. 1 was allowed officiating charge of the post of Principal on the retirement of Sri R.P. Sharma w.e.f. 30.06.2004, on account of the fact, that respondent No. 1 was the senior-most teacher working in the lecturer grade at that juncture. The aforesaid promotion came to be allowed vide an order dated 08.04.2006, issued by the District Education Officer, Dehradun. The officiating charge was vested in respondent No. 1 by the aforesaid order, when he assumed charge of the post of Principal w.e.f 10.04.2006, has 3 continued uninterruptedly till date. Under the Regulation (extracted hereinabove) pay in the higher scale can be denied only if the charge is for a period not exceeding 30 days. In so far as the admitted factual position in the present controversy is concerned, the charge has continued from 10.04.2006 till date, i.e. well-well over a period of 30 days. As such, we are satisfied, that respondent No. 1 is entitled to the pay of the post for which he has rendered uninterrupted service w.e.f. 10.04.2006. A determination to the contrary would be violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as also Article 39 thereof, which postulates that an employee is entitled to pay of the post against which he is required to render services. Regulation-3 (extracted hereinabove) also envisages the same. As such, we are satisfied, that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in allowing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1155 of 2008 by granting respondent No. 1 salary in the pay scale of the post of Principal with effect from the date he commenced to render services as such, i.e. with effect from 10.04.2006. 5. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant special appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. In view of the fact, that the main appeal has been dismissed on merit, it is not necessary to pass a formal order on the application seeking condonation of delay. Amit (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 15.04.2010 15.04.2010