Sakhawat Ullah Khan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 10130 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sakhawat Ullah Khan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 3 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:155667
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - A No. - 17669 of 2017   
 
   Sakhawat Ullah Khan    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
J.P. Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 38
 
   
 
 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.     

1. Heard Shri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed questioning the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Pilibhit and for further direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Pilibhit to ensure that the petitioner is sanctioned the pay-scale to the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.07.2011 within time to be specified by this Court.

3. The petitioner being second senior most lecturer of the S.N. Inter College, Pilibhit was considered for the post of officiating Principal by the Committee of Management. He was appointed as officiating Principal on 30.06.2011 and proposals were sent to District Inspector of Schools, Pilibhit with specimen signature of the petitioner. S.N. Inter College, Pilibhit is an aided and recognized college and the said college was declared minority institution. Since the college was admitted to be declared as minority institution, the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable.

4. Consequent to the resolution passed on 28.08.2011, the petitioner was allowed to work as officiating Principal of the college. In view of same, the petitioner was entitled to the salary of the officiating Principal but he was not paid the salary. However, vide impugned order, his claim was rejected. Left with no option, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court to quash the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 with further direction to pass appropriate orders in respect of the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that District Inspector of Schools, Pilibhit has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that as per provisions contained in the Removal of Difficulties Order, the DIOS has been empowered to grant ad-hoc promotion to senior most lecturer but the same is not applicable to minority institution. In case of the minority institutions, as per Section 16 FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Regional Joint Director has power to grant approval to three names selected by Selection Committee in the presence of the expert. In the present, District Inspector of Schools, Pilibhit has failed to consider that the petitioner having been appointed to the post of officiating principal is entitled to the pay scale and salaries attached to the post of Principal.

6. To support his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Ballia reported in 1980 UPLBEC, 287, paragraph 2 whereof is extracted herein below:

"2. The petitioner is a teacher in aided and recognized institution and the liability for the prejoint his salary is on the State Government under the U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary of Teacher and other Employees) Act, 1971. The salary of a teacher in aided and recognized institution is regulated by the regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the order issued by the State Government from time to time. Regulation 46 in Chapter III lays down that employees of an aided and recognized institution shall be given the pay scale of sanctioned by the State Government from time to time. The State Government has prescribed the scales of pay for teachers. The State Government issued an order on 18th January 1974 accepting the recommendations of the U.P. Pay Commission prescribing scales of pay for teachers. Paragraph 5 (2) of the Government order lays down that a teacher while officiating on the post carrying higher grade is entitled to officiating salary in the higher grade and it further prescribed procedure for determining the salary of officiating teacher in the higher grade. A copy of the Government order was before us by the petitioner. Respondents do not deny the petitioner's averment that the State Government issued orders sanctioning officiating pay to a teacher in the higher grade. The petitioner's claim for salary in Principal's grade was sanctioned by the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of the aforesaid Government order. Respondents have failed to show any subsequent Government order or rule superceding the direction contained in Government order dated 24-1-74. The respondents have further failed to place any material before the court showing that the petitioner was not entitled to the salary in the Principal grade while officiating on the post of Principal. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31-8-77 is therefore not sustainable in law."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Narbdeshwar Misra Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, 1982 UPLBEC 0 171, relevant paragraph nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 are extracted herein below:

"4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner is well founded. Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the aforesaid Regulations reads as follows:

"2 (1) The posts of the Head of Institution shall, except as provided in clause (2) be filled by direct recruitment after reference to the Selection Committee under Sub-section (1) of section 16-F or, as the case may be, under Sub section (1) of Section 16-FF.

Provided that in the case of any instruction not being an institution referred to in Section 16-FF a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period no exceeding six months, or by death, retirement or suspension of any incumbent occurring during an educational session in the pest of the Head of Instruction shall be filled by the promotion of the senior most qualified teacher, if any, in the highest grade in institution.

5. The next relevant provision is clause (3) of Regulation No.2 of Chapter II which reads thus:-

"Where the temporary vacancy in the past of the 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 or 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."

6. A perusal of the proviso to Regulation No.2 (1) shows that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by it. The petitioner was appointed in the vacancy caused by the retirement of Banshidhar Dixit, to officiate as the Principal of the College. The petitioner was the senior most teacher. He was, therefore, lawfully appointed as the officiating Principal contemplated by the proviso.

8. The same conclusion also flows from clause (3) of Regulation No.2 quoted above. The provision that where the temporary vacancy in the past of the Head of the Institution is for a period exceeding thirty days, the senior most teacher may be allowed to work as acting head of the Institution but that he would not be entitled to pay in a scale higher than that in which he was drawing his salary as a teacher clearly suggests that where the vacancy in the post of Principal lasts more than 80 days, the teacher appointed to officiate as the Principal under the aforesaid proviso would entitled to the salary admissible to a Principal."

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid decision was reconsidered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Jay Prakash Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others [2014 (8) ADJ 617 (FB), paragraph nos. 45, 46 and 57 are extracted herein below:

"45. We may again note that several decisions have taken the view that a person who has officiated on the post of a principal of a secondary school would be entitled to the salary of a principal. These decisions were in:

(i) Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools (supra);

(ii) Narbdeshwar Misra v. District Inspector of Schools (supra); and

(iii) Soloman Morar Jha v. District Inspector of Schools (supra)

46. We have noted the four propositions which emerge from the judgment of the Division Bench in Daljeet Singh (supra) which from the basis of the decision to hold that an officiating principal is not entitled to the salary payable to a principal. In our respectful view, each of the four propositions suffers from a legal error.

57. We, accordingly, dispose of the reference in the following terms:

(i) The decision in Daljeet Singh (supra) does not lay down the correct proposition in law; and

(ii) An officiating principal appointed under the Statutes of the University, which are pari materia to the provisions of Statute 10-B of the First Statutes would be entitled to claim the payment of salary in the regular grade of principal for the period during which he or she has worked until a regularly selected candidate has been appointed and has assumed charge of the office."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue was already decided by this Court and the same was confirmed by the Full Bench of this Court holding the claim for the payment of salary in the regular grade of principal for the period during which he or she has worked until a regularly selected candidate has been appointed. In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary to the period he worked as officiating Principal of the Institution.

10. Finally, in reply to the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said issue was decided by this Court in the case of Soloman Morar Jha Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others [1985 UPLBEC 113], holding that though the provisions of Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the Regulations does not prohibit the payment of salary to a lecturer in the Principal's grade, for the period during which he officiates on that post, but the view taken by the District Inspector of Schools, Pilibhit is unjustified.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has extended his argument that the impugned order is not only violation of the principles of natural justice but also is contrary to the observations made by this Court in the above referred judgments, more particularly law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Jay Prakash Narayan Singh (supra) and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Soloman Morar Jha (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 may be set aside with direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Pilibhit to grant pay scale and salaries to the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.07.2011 till the date of retirement.

12. In reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has submitted that as far as the facts are concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has worked as an officiating Principal of the Institution.

13. Considering the submissions made by both the counsels as well as perusal of the record as issue involved in the present case is that the petitioner was considered to be appointed on the post of Principal by the Committee of Management on 30.06.2011, the same was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Pilibhit. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary to the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.07.2011 till the date of retirement.

14. It is also not in dispute that the District Inspector of Schools, Pilibhit has not given opportunity of hearing while passing the impugned order dated 14.12.2016, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner and there is no denial in the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents. Apart from the said fact, it is also not in dispute that the said issue was considered by this Court way back in 1979 in the case of Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan (supra). In 1985, the core issue with regard to the applicability of the Rules to the minority Institution and entitlement of the person who officiates to the post of the Principal in the minority Institution was also decided in the case of Soloman Morar Jha (supra). All the judgments were taken into account by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Jay Prakash Narayan Singh (supra) wherein it has been categorically held that the officiating Principal is entitled for payment of salary in the Principal's grade, for the period during which he / she worked.

15. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court and also the principles laid down in the case of Soloman Morar Jha (supra), the impugned order is not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but also the law declared by this Court. Hence the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Pilibhhit is set aside, with direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Pilibhit to release arrears of salaries of the petitioner forthwith.

16. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

(Donadi Ramesh,J.)

September 3, 2025

rkg