IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2010 (S/S) Naveen Chandra Pant …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……….Respondents. Present: Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The short contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that being the senior most Lecturer in the Inter College, Khirkhet, Ranikhet, District Almora, which is admittedly under grant-in-aid, he was given the charge of Principal when the vacancy fell vacant on 1st July, 2005. Though he has been working as a Principal in the College eversince 1st July, 2005 and is now going to be retired on 31.1.2011, he has not been given salary, which is applicable to the post of Principal in the Intermediate College. 3. A similar controversy arose earlier before this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1155 of 2008 Suresh Chand Sharma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.7.2009, where the matter was adjudicated upon similar set of facts. The contention of the State was that if the vacancy is only for one month, then the salary shall not be payable of the post of Principal and he will be treated to be on lien on the earlier post i.e. of lecturer. However, admittedly in that case the petitioner had 2 worked beyond a period of one month, and therefore, the prohibition of not granting salary of the post of Principal did not apply to such cases. The learned Single Judge in that case had held that since the vacancy has continued beyond the period of one month, a lecturer who is officiating as Principal, is eligible to get the salary of Principal. The writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner on the post of Principal. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the State went in the Special Appeal being Special Appeal No. 45 of 2010. The Division Bench vide order dated 15.4.2010 upheld the order of the leaned Single Judge. Operative portion of the order dated 15.4.2010 reads as under:- “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:- “Whereas 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 3 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 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.” 4. It is told by the learned Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Dinesh Gahtori that against the order of the Division Bench, the State had gone in SLP, in which leave was not granted and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The order is annexed as Annexure – 13 to the writ petition. 5. In view of the above, it has been very fairly conceded by Sri Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand that the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing to one which has been adjudicated by this Court and the petitioner is liable to be given salary of the 4 post of Principal, Inter College, Khirkhet, Ranikhet, District Almora. 6. Therefore, the Secretary, Education, Uttarakhand Secretariat, Dehradun is directed to immediately pay salary to the petitioner for the post of Principal on which he is working since 1.7.2005, and after calculation, also pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the post of Principal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, but in no condition later than three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4.1.2011 Rathour