Uttarakhand High Court

Narendra Kumar vs Union Of India & Others on 13 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
               AT NAINITAL
               HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
                 HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J

          WRIT PETITION (S/B)_No.449 of 2019
Narendra Kumar                             ...Petitioner
                                     Versus
Union of India & others                                           ...Respondents



Counsel for the petitioner            :       Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel
                                              through VC.

Counsel for Union of India/1 and 2            Ms. Monika Pant, learned Standing
                                              Counsel through VC.


Counsel for respondent no.3                   Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned senior
                                              counsel.


JUDGMENT :

(PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J) Petitioner is serving as Trained Graduate Teacher in a school run by Cantonment Board, Roorkee. According to him, by virtue of his seniority, he was given officiating charge as Principal of the concerned school on 01.08.2017, and he is discharging the duties as Principal continuously ever since then. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding directing the respondent to grant pay scale of Principal from 01.08.2017 till date and further directed to fix the salary of the petitioner accordingly.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding directing the respondent to relief the pending arrears of salary for the post of Principal.

iii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has made a representation dated 16.03.2018 to the concerned authorities, as Annexure no.5 to the writ petition and prays that the same may be decided.

3. Since petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus and he has also made a representation to the competent authority, therefore, we think that end of justice would be met, if the competent authority is directed to take decision in the matter.

4. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent no.3 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Roorkee to consider and decide the petitioner's representation, one way or the other, within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J.

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

Dt:13th May, 2025 NR/