Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1005 (MP)

N. R. Shende v. State of MP

2010-10-01

RAJENDRA MENON

body2010
ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. 1. Claiming salary in accordance to the pay prescribed for the post of Principal for certain period when the Petitioner had worked as Incharge Principal and which claim was rejected by the Respondents by the impugned order-dated 18.1.2010, Petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Facts that have come on record, indicates that Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher on 31.1.1973. He was posted in Government Higher Secondary School, Lakhnadon, District Seoni. Vide order-dated 19.2.1974, he was appointed on the post of Lecturer and was posted at Nikum, District Durg. Petitioner's name appears in the Gradation List of Lecturers as on 1.4.1995 at Serial No. 2935, as is evident from Annexure P/1. As various posts of Principal, Higher Secondary School were lying vacant and as regular promotions and appointments to the post of Principal were not being made, it was decided that Lecturers working in various institutes be posted as 2 Incharge Principal in the schools as per necessity. Accordingly, Petitioner was also posted as Incharge Principal in Higher Secondary School, Teegaon vide order-dated 19.8.1996. Later on, this order was modified and Petitioner as posted as Incharge Principal in Government Higher Secondary School, Shyampur, District Sehore. Documents in this regard are Annexures P/2 and P/3. Finally, Petitioner was regularly promoted as Principal and posted in the equivalent post of Assistant Director, vide order-dated 7.4.1999 - Annexure P/4. 3. Many employees, similarly situated like the Petitioner and who were working as Incharge Principals, filed writ petitions challenging the action of the Respondents and claimed relief of promotion/appointment on the post of Principal so also salary on the post of Principal, for the period they had worked as Incharge Principal. Petitions filed were allowed by this Court and the documents indicating orders passed by this Court are Annexure P/7 dated 27.2.2004, and the orders implementing the directions of this Court are Annexure P/8 dated 30.10.2007 and Annexure P/9 dated 19.2.2008. It is seen that the Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government also is dismissed by the Supreme Court, vide Annexure P/11. 4. A perusal of the orders passed by this Court indicates that in O.A. No. 427/1996 - Vidya Shankar Tiwari and Anr. It is seen that the Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government also is dismissed by the Supreme Court, vide Annexure P/11. 4. A perusal of the orders passed by this Court indicates that in O.A. No. 427/1996 - Vidya Shankar Tiwari and Anr. v. State of MP and others, a Bench of the State Administrative Tribunal had decided the question and this Court had followed the law laid down in Vidya Shankar Tiwari (supra) and has granted relief to various employees. Petitioner is also claiming salary on the post of Principal alongwith interest @ 24% for the period during which he had discharged the duties of Incharge Principal i.e....from 26.10.1996 to 7.4.1999. When the claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide Annexure P/17, he has filed this writ petition. 5. Shri D.K. Dixit, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, taking me through the facts as are narrated hereinabove in the orders passed by this Court and the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in the case of Vidya Shankar Tiwari (supra), submitted that Petitioner is 3 also entitled to the salary for the period he discharged the duties of Incharge Principal. 6. Respondents have filed reply and have only stated that Petitioner is entitled to the salary in the pay scale of Principal with effect from the date he has been regularized to the said post of Principal, in the year 1999 and not prior to that. Respondents have tried to contend that the law laid down in the case of Vidya Shankar Tiwari (supra) has no application in the case of the Petitioner. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that in the case of Vidya Shankar Tiwari (supra), in paragraph 26, the State Administrative Tribunal has laid down the following principle: 26. In the present case, it is being professed for the Respondent/State that for 'ameliorating' (emphasis supplied) the grievance of Lecturers/UD Ts, they are being posted in various Institutions in the same capacity and in the same cadre and also on the same scale of pay to work not only as Lecturers/UD Ts, but also to perform the duties and functions of Principal. This is not the way of amelioration of grievance of the concerned employee. This is not the way of amelioration of grievance of the concerned employee. They should be paid atleast that pay scale which they are entitled to get on being promoted as Principals. Their posting may be only provisional and only in anticipation and subject to their appointment as Principals being confirmed by the DPC. But, atleast they must be paid the scale of pay of that post, the work of which is being taken from them, by virtue of such orders. 8. Following the aforesaid judgment in the case of Vidya Shankar Tiwari (supra), Gwalior Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6484/2003 - Shri Akeel Khan and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, had directed for grant of benefit to various other employees 4 and after the SLP filed by the State Government was dismissed vide Annexure P/11, on 5.4.2007, the State Government vide orders - Annexures P/8, P/9 and P/10 has implemented the directions issued by this Court in the case of Shri Akeel Khan (supra). 9. Case of the Petitioner is also similar. Petitioner had also discharged the duties of Incharge Principal for the period in question and in the light of the fact that in the case of Vidya Shankar Tiwari (supra), the principle laid down is that such incumbents are entitled to the pay scale on the post of Principal, there is no reason for denying similar benefit to the Petitioner. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid and considering the fact that parity has to be maintained, this petition is also allowed. Respondents are directed to grant to the Petitioner the pay applicable to the scale of Principal, for the period 26.10.1996 to 7.4.1999, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. Even though Petitioner has claimed interested on the amount, but from the records it is seen that Petitioner claimed the benefit only after his retirement, by making a representation on 9.6.2009 and approached this Court after the same was rejected vide Annexure P/17 on 18.1.2010. As the Petitioner himself is responsible for the delay in approaching the Court, I am not inclined to grant any interest to the Petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. As the Petitioner himself is responsible for the delay in approaching the Court, I am not inclined to grant any interest to the Petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order impugned-dated 18.1.2010 is quashed and Respondents are directed to pay salary to the Petitioner for the period in question as directed hereinabove, within a period of three months. 13. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.