- (1.) The State of Uttar Pradesh, through the Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P Lucknow and 3 others, are before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 24.2.2003 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.38980 of 1999 (Smt. Savitri Gupta vs. District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur & others).
(2.) It appears from the record in question that during the pendency of the present special appeal, sole petitioner-respondent died on 14.4.2006 and this Court vide an order dated 2.12.2010 allowed the substitution application and her legal heirs and representatives have been brought on record.
(3.) Brief background of the case is that the petitioner (since deceased) rendered her services as Assistant Teacher in private educational institutions, recognized by the District Inspector of Schools. She retired as officiating Principal of the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Malwa, District Fatehpur on 30.6.1998. By the order dated 31.7.1999 the petitioner was denied to count her services from 28.7.1962 on the ground that she was employed as temporary and untrained till 1972 when she joined the Government service. The order further stated that the Government order dated 15.10.1997 did not apply to the petitioner for counting her earlier services. Aggrieved with the order, she approached this Court by means of a Writ Petition No.34477 of 1999. Learned Single Judge had proceeded to allow the writ petition on 17.8.1999 and directed the Joint Director of Education, IV Region, Allahabad to pass specific order within two months and after considering the Government Order as to why the Government Order does not apply to the petitioner and if the respondent no.1 is of the opinion that the Government order applies, the earlier services of the petitioner will be counted. She had not been paid the salary of head of the institution for the period she had worked. She made several representations before the District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur but the same has not been considered. Thereafter, she filed second Writ Petition No.38980 of 1999 for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay her salary as Principal of the institution and also pay revised pay scale on the post of Principal i.e. Rs.6500-200-10500. Learned Single Judge has proceeded to allow the writ petition on 24.2.2003 with following observations:- "(3) According to the petitioner in reference of the proviso to Regulation No.2 Sub-clause (1) the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy caused by retirement of the Head of the institution to officiate as Head of the institution by virtue of being a senior most teacher, therefore, he is entitled for the salary of the Head of the institution. The petitioner has asserted that he is entitled by the squarely covered decision of Division Bench judgement of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Narbadeshwar Mishra vs. District Inspector of Schools,1982 UPLBEC 171. The aforesaid judgement has been followed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the case of Pushkar Singh Verma vs. District Inspector of Schools, Meerut and others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.27945 of 1999 decided on 14.7.1999. (4) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In para 10 of the counter affidavit the averments made in the writ petition had not been denied, however, according to the petitioner he had worked as a officiating Principal in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Saheli, Fatehpur from 1.10.93 to 12.5.1995 and from 1.11.1996 to 30th June, 1998 in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Malwa, Fatehpur and in view of the directions in Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan where it was observed that the salary of a teacher in aided and recognized institution is regulated by the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the order issued by the State Government from time to time Regulation 46 Chapter III lays down that employees of an aided and recognized institution shall be given the pay scale 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 Government Order laws 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 for determining the salary of officiating teacher in the higher grade. In the instant case, the petitioner's claim for salary in Principlal's grade was sanctioned by the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of the aforesaid Government Order. Respondents failed to place any material showing that the petitioner was not entitled to the salary in the principal's grade while officiating on the post of Principal. (5) In Narbdeshwar Misra in paragraph-6 it was observed that 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. (6) Similar view was also taken in Pushkar Singh where the petitioner was allowed to be given the salary for the period when he worked as an officiating Principal. In view of the above, I find that the petitioner had worked as an officiating Principal and he is entitled the salary for the above period. He is entitled to be given salary in accordance with law. Therefore, the District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur and the Joint Director Education-IV Region, Allahabad are directed to disburse the salary of the petitioner within six months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order. In view of the above observation, writ petition is allowed.";