AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has made this writ petition to direct the respondents to pay the salary and emoluments of the post of Principal to the petitioner when he has acted as Principal in the institution from the month of July, 2008 till date. He relied upon the judgments of this Bench dated 18th September, 2008 passed in C.M.W.P. No. 49172 of 2008 (Dr. V.K. Tiwari Vs. Director of Education & others)
(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel has taken a different view in view of the judgment report in 2007 (4) ESC 2261 (All) (DB) [Daljeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others] to substantiate that there is distinction between a government servant who is promoted to higher post and who is discharging duties of the higher post on the exigencies. Mere discharge of such duties in the higher post cannot be treated as promotion, therefore, the person acted as ad hoc Principal in the institution cannot get salary and emoluments of the regular Principal. Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has relied upon another Division Bench judgment reported in 1997(1) E.S.C. 164 (All)[Km. Renu Tiwari and others Vs. The Director, Higher Education, Allahabad (U.P.) and others]. In that case in considering the respective Regularization Rules, 1979 the Court held that practice of adhocism has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in numerous cases. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court indicated equal pay for equal work and has directed the concerned authorities for making payment of same emoluments to the incumbents working in the organization.
(3.) IN any event, upon going through the judgment, we have also gone through the counter affidavit. In sub-para (e) of para 3 of the same we find that stand factually taken by the State is that unless the vacancy is notified by the Committee of Management to the Commission for filling up the post of Principal on regular basis, the officiating Principal cannot claim salary of the regular Principal for the period he officiated as Principal of the college.;