Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1049 (ALL)

Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U. P.

2020-07-31

PANKAJ MITHAL, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Mithal, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ. 1. Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri Bheem Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Sri Indal Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6. 2. The judgment and order dated 14.2.2020 passed by the Writ-Court allowing the writ petition in part is under challenge. 3. The petitioner worked as Officiating Principal for a certain time period in an Intermediate College. He challenged the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereby the recovery of salary amount for the period 20th May, 2010 to 30th June, 2010 was ordered against him. 4. The learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition in part held that in so far as the petitioner continued to discharge duties as Officiating Principal during the period 20th May, 2010 to 30th June, 2010, the recovery is not justified. However, as the respondent No. 6, Dr. Savindra Kumar Singh, had joined as regular Principal of the Institution on 20th May, 2010, the State could not be burdened with the payment of salary to two persons staking claim to the same post and he is the regular Principal who is alone entitled for salary. It was further observed that in view of the above, the Court could not accept the claim of the petitioner-appellant for fixation of pension on the basis of the last pay drawn as Officiating Principal. 5. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the pensionary benefits have to be determined on the basis of the last pay drawn, we are of the view that the petitioner was not legally entitled to continue as Officiating Principal after 20th May, 2010 i.e., the date when the regular incumbent had joined the post of Principal, and as such the prayer for fixation of pension treating the last pay drawn by the petitioner to be that of the Officiating Principal cannot be accepted. 6. In this view of the matter, we find no error or irregularity in the judgment under appeal. 7. This special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.