Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order whereby the petitioner’s application, seeking directions for respondent to pay him the salary admissible for the post of Head Master (Junior Wing) along with arrears for the period he had worked upon superannuation of the person posted, was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’). The Division Bench of Arun Bhansali, CJ., and Kshitij Shailendra, J., held that the Tribunal did not thoroughly examine the record of proceedings and dismissed the said application on the ground that no provision was shown indicating entitlement of the petitioner to get a salary for Head Master.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the period concerned after adjusting the salary he had already received as TGT.
Background
The petitioner was serving as a Trained Graduate Teacher (‘TGT’) in a regular and substantive capacity under Respondent 4, Principal of East Central Railway Inter College, drawing a pay scale of Rs 5500-9000. Due to the superannuation of the Head Master (Junior Wing), the petitioner was directed to function as ‘Teacher In-charge’ of the Junior Wing until a regular incumbent was posted. The petitioner continued to discharge these duties from 1-12-2004 to 6-3-2008.
During this period, the petitioner repeatedly made representations for payment of salary for a higher pay scale of Rs 6500-10500, admissible to the post of Head Master (Junior Wing). However, no decision was taken on his representation. Instead, he was served with a charge-sheet alleging failure to maintain absolute integrity while functioning as Head Master (Junior Wing). The petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceedings through a departmental appeal, which was allowed, and he was exonerated of all charges.
Despite this, his claim for grant of the higher pay scale for the period during which he performed the duties of Head Master was not considered, compelling him to file an Original Application seeking direction for payment of salary in the scale of Rs 6500-10500 along with arrears.
The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The petitioner contended that since the petitioner worked on the higher post in an officiating capacity, though he may not be a regular promotee, he would be entitled to get salary for the higher post on which he had worked in such officiating capacity. Per contra, the respondent argued that the duties discharged by the petitioner during his tenure as Teacher In-charge were routine in nature and such an arrangement was made as a temporary stop-gap measure which would not confer entitlement to get higher scale of pay.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner’s working as Teacher In-charge was not a fact in dispute. The only issue requiring adjudication was the interpretation of the office order vis-à-vis the status which the petitioner enjoyed during the period from 1-12-2004 to 6-3-2008.
The Court observed that the petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings, and in the office memorandum issued in this regard, his designation was clearly mentioned as ‘Head Master (Junior Wing)’. Though no punishment was imposed by the Appellate Authority, the Court highlighted that, from the initiation of the departmental proceedings until the petitioner’s appeal was allowed, he was consistently referred to as Head Master/Principal of the Junior Wing.
Therefore, it could not be said that the respondents had not treated the petitioner as working in the capacity of Head Master/Principal of the Junior Wing. This clearly indicated that the duties performed by the petitioner could not be treated as routine in nature. Rather, the work undertaken by him was associated with those of a full-fledged Head of the institution, and not merely that of a Teacher In-charge.
The Court further observed that the respondents were attempting to interpret the words ‘Teacher In-charge’ in a manner that suited their defense, instead of adopting the correct perspective emerging from the facts and circumstances of the case.
Regarding the claim for salary for the period of 3 years and 4 months, the Court examined the office order and found that it clearly reflected the respondents’ intention that the petitioner would discharge duties of the Head Master until a permanent incumbent was posted. Hence, the nature of the charge entrusted to the petitioner, as well as the work performed, could not in any manner be regarded as less than that of a Head Master. The Court emphasized that the school could not have functioned for over three years had the petitioner performed only routine duties. Therefore, his work during this extended period could be considered as in the officiating capacity and not any lower capacity as suggested by the respondents.
The respondents’ reliance on Instructions 646 and 648(e) of the Railway Board Circular dated 5-6-1991 was found unpersuasive. Those instructions applied to situations where an employee held additional charge of a post ‘not filled up before’ and prohibited dual-charge allowance only for routine duties. In the present case, however, the post in question was a sanctioned post that had fallen vacant due to superannuation, and the duties performed by the petitioner, as already noted, were not routine.
Hence, the Court held that the Tribunal had failed to thoroughly examine the record and had dismissed the said application merely on the ground that no rule was shown entitling the petitioner to the salary of Head Master. Such an order could not be sustained. Further, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief claimed before the Tribunal.
The Court allowed the petition and stated that since the petitioner had already received salary for the period 1-12-2004 to 6-3-2008 admissible to the post of TGT, he was entitled to receive the difference between the salary admissible to the post of Head Master and that of TGT. Further, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs 6500-10500 for the period 1-12-2004 to 6-3-2008 after adjusting the salary he had already received as TGT.
The Court stated that he would be entitled to be paid simple interest on the difference of pay at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the said application. Further, the Court stated that the payment should be completed within two months.
[Uma Kant Pandey v. UOI, Writ A No. 6079 of 2025, decided on 11-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Amardeo Singh
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Agam Narain Roy