Allahabad High Court
The State Of ... vs Girija Prasad Dubey And Another on 14 November, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 518 of 2019 Appellant :- The State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Education(Madhyamik)Lko.And Ors. Respondent :- Girija Prasad Dubey And Another Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- G.C.Verma Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned counsel for the State-appellants and Sri G.C.Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on C.M.A. No. 131364 of 2019 as well as on the question of admission of appeal.
This special appeal is barred by 176 days.
Cause shown in delay in filing the appeal is sufficient.
Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The C.M.A. No. 131364 of 2019 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is allowed.
This special appeal has been filed against the Judgement and order dated 16.04.2019 passed by learned Writ Court in Service Single No. 3644 of 2004 whereby the State-appellants has been directed to pay the arrears of salary to the respondent no.1 on the post of Principal of the College in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 as revised from time to time w.e.f. 21.06.1999 till the age of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2012 after adjusting the payment made towards the salary and other allowance for the post of Principal in pursuance of the interim order dated 26.05.2005.
It is not in dispute that the appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent no.1 was made as an officiating Principal of the Institution under the Statute and therefore till regular Principal appointed, the respondent no.1 is entitled for the arrears of salary on the post of Principal. This issue has been settled by the Full Bench in the matter of Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 23627 of 2014, decided on 26.09.2014. Reference has been answered after relying upon the Statute 10-B holding that officiating Principal that once provisions of Statutes entitle the officiating Principal to receive regular salary, he would be entitled to it during the period in which he or she officiates as officiating Principal.
In the present case, the learned Writ Court decided both the issues and dealt the question in detail in paragraph nos. 13 to 19 of the impugned Judgement and order and has held that the appointment of the respondent no.1 made on the post officiating Principal and till date no regular Principal has been appointed and therefore, he would be entitled to the payment of arrears of salary on the post of Principal.
After going through the Judgement and order passed by the learned Writ Court, we are of the view that learned Standing Counsel could not point out any good ground for the interference of this Court in the Judgement and order passed by learned Writ Court. Thus, there is no legal infirmity in the Judgement and order passed by the learned Writ Court.
The special appeal is bereft of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
[Alok Mathur,J.] [Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.] Order Date :- 14.11.2019 S.Ali