State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... vs Narendra Kumar And 10 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11515 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... vs Narendra Kumar And 10 Others on 14 October, 2025

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63898-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 378 of 2025   
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Narendra Kumar And 10 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Rajendra Singh Chauhan   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 1
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.  

HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

C.M. Application No.1 of 2025

1. Heard.

2. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Even though the limitation for filing the appeal is 30 days, the appeal has been filed belatedly. There is a delay of 262 days. The judgment impugned herein is dated 20.11.2024 and the appeal has been preferred on 08.09.2025. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay, we find that a bonafide effort has been made to explain the delay and except for a short period of about two months, when the file was lying in the office of the Chief Minister of the State, it cannot be said that there was no concerted or bonafide effort made by the State to expedite the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken us through a recent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRS vs. Karnatka Housing Board and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969 decided on 12.09.2025. Based on the parameters laid down therein we are of the opinion that explanation offered by the appellants for the delay in filing the appeal is satisfactory and sufficient in the facts of this case. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal finally.

Order on Appeal

3. Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Tushar Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State appellants has argued the appeal on merits, so did Shri Asit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that there are schools being run by the Social Welfare Department of the Government which are referred as 'Aashram Paddhati Vidyalaya' upto the Intermediate level. Therefore there has to be a Principal of such school. Infact the condition of service of Principal and the lower post of Lecturer are governed by Service Rules framed by State Government in exercise of its powers under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

5. So far as the post of Principal is concerned the Rules are known as the U.P. Harijan and Social Welfare Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1991. As per Rule 4 of the U.P. Harijan and Social Welfare Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1991 the strength of the Service and of each cadre of posts therein shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. Rule 4(2) of the U.P. Harijan and Social Welfare Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1991 provides that the strength of the service and of each category of posts therein shall, until orders varying the same, are passed under sub-rule (1) be as given in the Appendix. Rule 5 of the U.P. Harijan and Social Welfare Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1991 deals with the source of recruitment. It provides that recruitment to various categories of posts in the service shall be made from the sources mentioned in the Appendix. These U.P. Harijan and Social Welfare Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1991 were amended in 2004 by the U.P. Harijan and Social Welfare Gazetted Officers Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2004.

6. As per the Appendix to the Rules, 1991 as amended in 2004 that is vide entry 13 thereof, the source of recruitment to the post of Principal, Rajkiya Ashram Paddhti Vidyalaya (Intermediate Section) is from substantively appointed Principals of Rajkiya Ashram Paddhti Vidyalaya, which is a reference to High School Section, who, on the first day of year of recruitment has completed five years of service, by selection though a Committee referred to in Rule 16.

7. It is not in dispute that the respondents herein were working as Lecturers in the Intermediate Section/ College and not as Principal of Rajkiya Ashram Paddhti Vidyalaya (High School Section). On being asked Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Advocate General fairly stated that there was no person working on the post of Principal, Rajkiya Ashram Paddhti Vidyalaya of the High School Section. The reason for it is, this post was abolished vide Government Order dated 23.10.2015 by which a reorganization of the entire structure of such Rajkiya Ashram Paddhti Vidyalayas took place so as to bring it at par with the Navodaya Vidyalayas.

8. Now when the Feeder post of Principal of Rajkiya Ashram Paddhti Vidyalaya (High School Section) itself did not exist after 23.10.2015, and in any case no person working on such post, in this scenario, the State Government considered the persons (respondents) holding the post if Lecturer (Intermediate) for the purposes of promotion on the post of Principal of Rajkiya Ashram Paddhti Vidyalayas (Intermediate Section). The State Government considered the respondents who were working as Lecturers in the Intermediate Section/ College in the pay scale corresponding to the said post albeit, some were working in the pay scale with grade pay of 4800 while others were working in the pay scale with grade pay of 5400. Based on such consideration, as they were found fit, the respondents were promoted to the post of Principal of Rajkiya Ashram Paddhti Vidyalayas (Intermediate Section) vide order dated 07.02.2024, which is annexed as Annexure no.2 to this appeal. It is also not in dispute that whatever procedure was prescribed, for considering such persons for promotion to the post of Principal, was followed, meaning thereby they were considered as per Rules by a duly constituted Selection Committee. They were promoted to the aforesaid post of Principal in the pay scale of 15,600-39,100 (grade pay 7600) in terms of Government Order dated 23.10.2015 which is referred in the promotion order dated 07.02.2024.

9. Now the contention of Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Advocate General before us is that as per the Rules, 1991 as amended in 2004 promotion was to be made from the post of Principal, Rajkiya Ashram Paddhti Vidyalayas (High School), a post which the respondents did not hold, however, he himself has very fairly informed that infact that post was abolished/ done away with vide Government Order dated 23.10.2015 consequent to restructuring/ reorganization of the entire system and there was nobody working on such post. We have also perused the said Government Order dated 23.10.2015 which speaks of Principal, Intermediate Section and Lecturer with pay scale of 15,600-39,100 of grade pay 7600 and pay scale 9300-34,900 of grade pay 9200, respectively. There is no post of Principal, High School mentioned therein. Infact in the earlier Government Order dated 24.10.2011 itself the post of Principal, High School does not find mention. Therefore, purely in the facts of this case faced with the scenario, as noticed herein-above, the State Government promoted Lecturers to the post of Principal, which was the next higher post of Lecturer.

10. In fact the post of Principal of High School Section having been done away with vide Government Order dated 23.10.2015, rightly so, because there cannot be two Principals, one for Intermediate Section and other for High School Section, the only source of promotion to the post of Principal, Intermediate College left was of Lecturer of Intermediate Section, that is the respondents. As such, they were rightly considered for such promotion. The stipulation at entry 13 of Appendix to the U.P. Harijan and Social Welfare Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1991 as amended in 2004 should have been amended in the light of restructuring done vide Government Order dated 23.10.2015 but merely because this was not done, it would not invalidate the promotion of Lecturers, for obvious reason as there was no post of Principal, High School Section. The State has not cancelled the promotion order. The respondents are continuing as Principal which carries the grade pay of 7600 in the prescribed pay scale.

11. Secondly, in this context Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Advocate General invited our attention to a Government Order dated 20.12.2005, by which, according to him, post of Principal and Lecturer (Classes XI and XII) were created with a pay scale of 8,000-13,500 and 6,500-10,500, respectively, and the pay scale of the post of Principal was upgraded to 10,000-15,200 vide Government Order dated 29.12.2009.

12. Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Advocate General laid great emphasis on another Government Order dated 12.05.2010 by which, according to him, three grades were created in the Lecturer cadre. One was the ordinary pay scale of 6500-10,500 grade pay 4800, in which some of the respondents were working. The second was selection pay scale of 7500-12,000 grade pay 5400, in which some of the other respondents were working and third was the promotional pay scale of 8,000-13,500 grade pay 6600. Although on a reading of the said Government Order dated 12.05.2010 it appears that separate posts/ grades were not created within the cadre of Lecturer, but for provision of time scale/ promotional pay scale the said grade/ pay scale was prescribed, as is normally done where a person working on the post if he is not promoted is given the selection grade on completion of a particular period of service and thereafter the promotional pay scale but without recording any conclusive opinion in this regard, even if, we take into consideration the assertion of Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Advocate General that infact three grades/ pay scales were created within the Lecturer cadre and based thereon his contention that the respondents were working in the ordinary grade and selection grade therefore they could not have been promoted directly to the post of Principal without getting promoted to the promoted pay scale/ grade pay within the Lecturer cadre and even if promoted in the peculiar circumstances mentioned herein-above they could not possibly be given the grade/ pay scale of 7600 instead they were entitled only to grade pay of 5400, what we find is that this alleged creation of three grades though finds mention in the subsequent Government Order dated 24.10.2011 but all this grading, as asserted by Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Advocate General, does not find mention in the subsequent reorganization/ restructuring of the service vide Government Order dated 23.10.2015, by which the entire system was reorganized nor does it find mention in the Rules of 1991, and on a bare perusal of the said Government Order dated 23.10.2015, above the post of Lecturer the only other post mentioned was the post of Principal and there is no mention of three grades of Lecturers in this Government Order, therefore, this argument is contrary to the records and untenable. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the appellants that there were other Lecturers working on the higher grade carrying pay scale of 8000-13,500 than the respondents who were not considered for promotion and illegally respondents working in the lower grade were promoted. In fact, it is undisputed case that respondents were the only Lecturers available for being considered for such promotion. Therefore, even otherwise, this alleged creation of three grades in the Lecturer cadre was inconsequential.

13. As regards contention of Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Advocate General that the respondents being Lecturers could not have been promoted directly to the post of Principal, this is also unacceptable for the reason that the Feeder post mentioned in the Rules itself is non-existent, as per his own contention. The State has not cancelled the promotion order. It has only modified the order of promotion by granting lower grade pay of 5400 to the respondents instead of 7600 which is a grade pay payable to a Principal. Secondly and undisputedly there was nobody working as Principal in Rajkiya Ashram Paddhti Vidyalaya (High School Section), therefore, there was veritably no person to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal as per the provisions in the Rules as referred to herein-above, as such, the only option open for the State Government was to consider the persons working on the post of Lecturer, and this is how the promotions were made. Now for the State to say that though the respondents will work on the post of Principal and discharge the duties and higher responsibilities of a higher nature, they will not be paid the grade pay attached to the post of Principal, that is 7600, but will be paid the grade pay of only 5400, is absolutely unreasonable and unacceptable. When the person is discharging the duties of a higher post he has to get the scale and grade pay of the said post. Most important, the situation which has emerged is not of the doing of the respondents.

14. We are of the considered view that faced with such situation the best option was exercised by the State Government by promoting the Lecturers to the post of Principal as an Intermediate Level College could not function without a Principal. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted at all for having allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents/ Lecturers and quashing the orders dated 10.06.2024 and 14.06.2024, by which the grade pay of the respondents/ Lecturers was reduced from 7600 to 5400. The action was absolutely unreasonable and unsustainable in facts of this case. We must also put it on record that no financial loss whatsoever is caused to the State Government by such promotions, because the promotions have been made against sanctioned post and the respondents have been granted the grade pay of the post on which they have been promoted which in any case the State would have to pay to the incumbent of the said post.

15. It is also informed by the respondent Counsel that subsequent to passing of orders, which were impugned before the writ court, further posts of Principal, Rajkiya Ashram Paddhti Vidyalayas (Intermediate Section) have been created by the State in the pay scale of 15,600-39,100 with grade pay 7600 and not 5400. We express no opinion in this regard.

16. Purely in the facts of the case as discussed herein-above, we do not find any valid ground for interference with the judgment of the writ court in an intra-court appeal.

17. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

October 14, 2025

Arnima