Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 156 (UTT)

SHRI GOPAL AGARWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2020-02-28

R.C.KHULBE, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State Government and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him salary for the post of Principal of the BSM Inter College Roorkee, District Haridwar for the period from 31.12.2012 till 31.03.2013; and to pay him arrears of the difference of the salary of a Lecturer and Principal for the said period with applicable interest. 3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Economics in the BSM Inter College, Roorkee, District Haridwar on 29.09.1989. The post of Principal of the said college fell vacant in the year 2012, and the petitioner, being the senior most Lecturer, was given officiating charge of the post of Principal on 31.12.2012. The petitioner remained posted as a Principal till 31.03.2013 (for a period of three months) when he retired from service from the said post. It is only for this three months' period that the petitioner claims that he is entitled to be paid the emoluments applicable to the post of a Principal, and for its inclusion in computing his retiral benefits. 4. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the judgement in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 55 of 2011 dated 20.06.2012, wherein the Full Bench held that, since the petitioners therein were appointed in vacancies which were for more than 30 days, they became entitled for the salary in the post of Principal, in which they were rendering service. A writ of mandamus was issued to the State to pay the petitioners therein the salary applicable to the post of Principal from the date they took charge as officiating Principal in the institutions concerned. 5. The attention of the Full Bench was, however, not drawn to the amendment made to the relevant provisions on 18.10.2011, in terms of which a Lecturer, who puts in at least ten years of service in the Selection Grade, is entitled to be considered first as a down-grade Principal; and it is only after he puts in five years of service as a down-grade Principal, is he then entitled to be promoted as a Principal. 6. 6. A Division Bench of this Court, in its order in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 78 of 2017 and batch dated 04.09.2019, observed that, while a senior lecturer in the selection grade cannot claim the benefit of the pay-scale of a Principal in the light of the 2011 amendment, he was nonetheless entitled to be considered for promotion as a down-grade Principal, and to be paid his retiral benefits in terms thereof. 7. In the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 78 of 2017 and batch dated 04.09.2019, the petitioner may be entitled to be considered for the post of down-grade Principal, if he has fulfilled the criteria of having put in at least 10 years of service as a lecturer-selection grade. 8. Suffice it, instead of keeping the writ petition pending on the file of this Court, to permit the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities concerned to consider his case as a down-grade Principal as per the 2011 amendment of the Rules. In case any such representation is made within four weeks from today, the respondents shall consider the petitioner's entitlement to be promoted as a down-grade Principal and, in case they are satisfied that he is entitled to be so promoted as a down-grade Principal, to then determine the amounts due to him from the date on which he is entitled to be promoted as a down-grade Principal; and pay him his retiral benefits in terms thereof. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.