Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar Pundir vs State Of U.P.And 2 Ors. on 14 January, 2020
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51926 of 2013 Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Pundir Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anup Swaroop Srivastava,Anil Kumar Srivastava,Parmatma Prasad Pandey,Sujit Kumar Rai,Swarn Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhitab Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner is the senior most Lecturer in Kund Kund Jain Inter College, Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar, which is a minority institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the provisions of U.P. High SchoolS and Intermediate Collages (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Staff) Act, 1971 are also applicable.
Being the senior most Lecturer the petitioner has been appointed as Officiating Principal of the institution concerned on 30.6.2009 and he was accordingly working. However, his claim for payment of salary on the post of Principal has been denied by the order impugned dated 27.6.2013, which records that as a requisition has not been sent to the Commission under the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Act, 1982, therefore, the Govt. Order dated 26.11.1996 will not come into play. Consequently, petitioner's claim for payment of salary on the post of Officiating Principal has been denied.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the provisions of the Act of 1982 will not be applicable upon a minority institution inasmuch right of making appointment in such institution continues to be governed by section 16FF of the Act of 1921, and therefore, the question of sending requisition to the Board would not arise. It is submitted that under relevant Govt. Orders as also the provisions contained under Section 18(1)(a) & (2) of the Act of 1982 the Officiating Principal would be entitled to salary. It is further submitted that the Act of 1982 would strictly not apply but so far as benefit of salary on officiating basis is concerned the teacher of minority institution cannot be discriminated.
Learned Standing Counsel opposes the petition but the legal position that the Act of 1982 would not apply upon a minority institution is not shown to be incorrect. It is further stated that the Inspector has only observed that the requisition would not be warranted in the facts of the present case since the institution is a minority institution, and therefore, the Govt. Order granting benefit of salary on the post of Officiating Principal would not be applicable.
Having considered the submissions advanced, this Court finds that section 16FF of the Act of 1921 will apply in the facts of the present case. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Inspector to deny salary on the post of Principal only on the ground that requisition has not been sent is wholly arbitrary. Even otherwise, no discrimination can be made by the State so for as payment of salary is concerned between an Officiating Principal of minority institution and that of any other recognized institution. Since in other institutions the provisions of section 18(1)(a) & (2) of the Act of 1982 permits the salary to be released on the post of Principal, as such denial of such benefit to an Officiating Principal of a minority institution would clearly be arbitrary.
Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 27.6.2013 stands quashed. Respondents are directed to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made above, and in case it is found that petitioner has actually worked as Officiating Principal, he would not be denied salary for the post of regular Principal. Required consideration would be made within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 14.1.2020 Ashok Kr.