Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed with the grievance that petitioners were allowed to work in their own pay scale as Principal vide orders dt.28/08/2003. However, they were regularly promoted as Principal on the recommendations of departmental promotion committee against vacancy years 2001 -02 vide order dt.20.10.2007 - in terms whereof, notional fixation of pay of the post of Principal was made vide order dt. 03/1/2008 (Ann.6).
(2.) MAIN core contention of the Counsel is that once they were discharging duties of the post of Principal since August, 2003, they are entitled to actual pay & allowances of the post held by them and notional fixation of pay under the garb of regular appointment against vacancy years 2001 -02 in pursuance of order dt. 20.10.2007 (Ann. 5) though may not have deprived them of their future pay but that has certainly denied of actual salary of the post which they were continuously holding while discharging duties whereof since August, 2003. In support Counsel placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Gopi Nathan Nair v. State CWP 9271/2005 decided vide judgment dt.20.05.2008. Submission made by Counsel is of no substance for the reason that the order dt.28.08.2003 by which petitioner were asked to work as Principal in their own pay scale apparently was not a promotion on adhoc/urgent temporary basis as provided under Scheme of service Rules and it was a mere posting on the post of Principal in their own pay scale and if the petitioners were not inclined to join, they had option either to forego it or to have raised a dispute against it claiming salary of the post which was being held by them and indisputably, on their regular promotion on the basis of recommendations of DPC against vacancies of earlier years vide order dt. 20.10.2007, the respondents have granted them benefit of notional fixation of pay & other admissible benefits under the scheme of Rules, vide order dt. 03.11.2008 (Ann.6); but raising grievance for payment of salary of the post of Principal from August, 2003 will not be permitted by this Court to be raised at this belated stage; more so they never protested at the time of their posting in 2003.
(3.) IT is relevant to mention that petitioners will not be put to any future loss since on regular promotions having been accorded vide order dt.20.10.2007 (Ann. 5), notional benefits have already been granted by respondents vide fixation orders dt.03.11.2008 (Ann. 6).;