Uttarakhand High Court
Cant Onm Ent Boar D vs Vishnu Dev on 24 March, 2025
2025:UHC:2115-DB
U HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
H ON 'BLE JUSTI CE SRI M AN OJ KUM AR TI W ARI AN D
H ON 'BLE JUSTI CE SRI ASH I SH N AI TH AN I
U Special Appeal No. 248 of 2017
Cant onm ent Boar d, Dehradun -Appellant
Versus
Vishnu Dev - - Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence: -
U
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocat e for t he appellant
Mr. Sanj ay Bhat t , Advocat e for t he respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cour t m a de t he follow ing:
JUDGMENT:
( pe r H on 'ble Just ice Sr i M a noj Kum a r Tiw a r i)
U U
1. This int ra- court appeal is direct ed against t he
j udgm ent and order dat ed 30.03.2017, passed by
learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 1379 of
2016.
2. By im pugned j udgm ent , Cant onm ent Board,
Dehradun, was direct ed t o pay salary of t he post of
Headm ast er, on which writ pet it ioner ( respondent
herein) officiat ed, wit hin 10 weeks, wit h a furt her
direct ion to consider his case for prom ot ion as
Headm ast er.
3. It is cont ended by learned counsel for t he
appellant t hat writ pet it ioner/ respondent was only
given officiat ing charge as Headm ast er of a Prim ary
School, run by Cant onm ent Board, Dehradun while his
subst ant ive post was Assist ant Teacher and since t he
writ pet it ioner/ respondent was paid due salary for t he
post of Assist ant Teacher, t herefore, he is not ent it led
2025:UHC:2115-DB
t o any rem unerat ion for t he dut ies, he discharged as
officiat ing Headm ast er.
4. Mr. Sanj ay Bhat t , learned counsel for respondent
subm it s t hat sim ilar cont roversy was decided by
learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 1140 of
2005 in favour of one Sm t . Hem a Kandpal, who was
also serving as t eacher in a school run by Cant onm ent
Board, Nainit al. The said j udgm ent was affirm ed by
Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 20 of 2006 vide
j udgm ent dat ed 24.04.2006.
5. Hon'ble Suprem e Court , in t he case of Ja sw a nt
Singh Vs. Punj a b Poult r y Fie ld St a ff Associa t ion,
report ed in ( 2 0 0 2 ) 1 SCC 2 6 1 has held as under:
" The High Court 's decision in Gobind Singh
case did not direct t he prom ot ion of Gobind Singh.
What was direct ed was t he paym ent of salary and
allowances of t he post of Chick Sexer since Gobind
Singh had been discharging t he dut ies of t hat
post . Therefore, while t he appellant 's prom ot ion t o
t he post of Chick Sexer cannot be upheld, given
t he fact t hat t he appellant had discharged t he
dut ies of a Chick Sexer, he was at least ent it led t o
t he pay and ot her allowances at t ribut able t o t hat
post during t he period he carried out such dut ies.
We accordingly allow t he appeal in part .
While upholding t he order of t he High Court ,
set t ing aside t he order of t he appellant 's
prom ot ion, we direct t he respondent Aut horit ies t o
pay t he appellant for t he period he rendered
service as a Chick Sexer at t he scales of pay
t oget her wit h all allowances t o which Chick Sexers
were ent it led at t he relevant t im e."
6. Adm it t edly, writ pet it ioner discharged dut ies as
officiat ing Headm ast er from 22.10.2011 t ill
28.06.2017, as report ed by learned counsel for t he
appellant , t herefore, t he direct ion to pay him
2025:UHC:2115-DB
rem unerat ion as officiat ing Headm ast er, issued by
learned Single Judge cannot be fault ed.
7. Thus, t here is no scope for int erference. The
Special Appeal fails and is dism issed.
_______________________________
M AN OJ KUM AR TI W ARI , J.
__________________________
ASH I SH N AI TH AN I , J.
Dt : 24 TH March, 2025
P P
Mahinder
