Thursday, May 9, 2024

पद के अनुरूप कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन करने पर याची उच्च पद के वेतन का हकदार, देखें हाईकोर्ट ऑर्डर

May 09, 2024

प्रयागराज : इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने कहा है कि लंबे समय से कार्यरत कार्यवाहक प्रधानाचार्य भी नियमित ग्रेड पे पाने का हकदार है, क्योंकि नियमित प्रधानाचार्य की नियुक्ति होने तक उसने सभी कार्यों का निर्वहन किया है। उसे नियमित ग्रेड पे के दावे के भुगतान से इन्कार नहीं किया जा सकता। इस टिप्पणी के साथ कोर्ट ने याची को कार्यवाहक प्रधानाचार्य के रूप में कार्य करने की अवधि तक सभी लाभों के साथ एरियर भुगतान का आदेश दिया है।

न्यायमूर्ति पीयूष अग्रवाल ने राजकिशोरी कुशवाहा की याचिका स्वीकार करते हुए यह आदेश दिया है। कोर्ट का कहना था कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने पी. ग्रोवर बनाम हरियाण राज्य मामले में कहा है कि पद के अनुरूप कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन करने पर याची उच्च पद के वेतन का हकदार होगा। याची प्रयागराज (इलाहाबाद) के मऊआइमा में जिला पंचायत कन्या उच्चतर माध्यमिक विद्यालय के तहत सहायक अध्यापक के रूप में नियुक्त हुईं थीं। 25 जनवरी 1988 को विद्यालय की स्थायी प्रधानाचार्य के रूप में कार्यरत मधुरानी श्रीवास्तव की मृत्य हो गई।

मऊआइमा के जिला पंचायत कन्या उच्चतर माध्यमिक विद्यालय का मामला

29 साल से प्रधानाध्यापिका पद का प्रभार लिए रही शिक्षिका को हाईकोर्ट ने एक माह के अंदर दिया पद के अनुरूप वेतन और भत्तों के भुगतान का आदेश

प्रयागराज । इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने प्रधानाध्यापिका पद पर कार्य करने के लिए सहायक अध्यापिका को उसके पद दायित्व निर्वहन के अनुसार वेतन और भत्तों के भुगतान का निर्देश दिया है। कोर्ट ने याचिका की सुनवाई करते हुए कहा कि शिक्षिका को एरियर, वेतन व अन्य लाभों का भुगतान एक माह के अंदर किया जाए। राज किशोरी कुशवाहा की याचिका पर न्यायमूर्ति पीयूष अग्रवाल की कोर्ट ने यह आदेश दिया।

राज किशोरी कुशवाहा मऊआइमा, प्रयागराज स्थित जिला पंचायत कन्या उच्चतर माध्यमिक विद्यालय में 27 सितंबर 1982 को सहायक शिक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त हुई थीं। 25 जनवरी 1988 को विद्यालय की प्रधानाध्यापिका मधु रानी श्रीवास्तव का निधन हो गया। इसके बाद याची को 15 फरवरी 1988 से प्रभारी प्रधानाध्यापक के रूप में नियुक्त किया गया। याची 31 जुलाई 2017 को सेवानिवृत्त तक इसी पद पर कार्यरत रहीं। लेकिन प्रधानाध्यापिका के पद के लिए उसे भुगतान नहीं किया गया है।

याची के अधिवक्ता का कहना था कि 1988 से 2017 तक याची ने कार्यवाहक प्रधानाध्यापिका के रूप में कार्य किया। मगर उसे केवल सहायक अध्यापक के पद का वेतन दिया गया। कोर्ट ने कहा कि याची सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर नियुक्त हुई थी लेकिन स्थायी प्रधानाध्यापिका की मृत्यु के बाद से याची ने लगातार प्रधानाध्यापिका के रूप में काम करती रही।

कोर्ट ने कहा कि याची ने 29 वर्षों से अधिक समय तक प्रधानाध्यापिका के रूप में अपनी सेवाएं दीं। लेकिन उन्हें सहायक अध्यापक के पद का वेतन दिया गया। कोर्ट ने याचिका स्वीकार करते हुए 17 फरवरी 1988 से आज तक के सभी लाभों के साथ बकाया वेतन के भुगतान का आदेश दिया है।

कोर्ट ऑर्डर 👇

WRIT - A No. - 3863 of 2018

Petitioner :- Smt. Raj Kishori Kushwaha

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Aishwarya Kumar Singh, Anand Kumar Yadav, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Rupesh Sharma

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Arun Kumar, Chhaya Gupta

HON’BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Mr. C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Chhaya Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the salary to the petitioner to the post of Head Mistress w.e.f. 17.02.1988 of the college in question namely Zila Pachayat Kanya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mauaima Allahabad, with all consequential benefits, forthwith.

(ii) …..

(iii) ….”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Zila Pachayat Kanya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya situated at Mauaima, Allahabad is a recognized institution under the Provision of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.34/17) and U.P. Basic Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 1981. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 27.09.1982 issued by the competent authority. Thereafter, the petitioner joined her services on 01.10.1982 and since then, she was discharging her services without any break or complaint. Since on 25.01.1988, one Madhu Rani Srivastava, who was discharging her duties as permanent Headmistress, expired. Thereafter, the petitioner was discharging her duties as in-charge Headmaster from 15.02.1988 and since then, the petitioner was discharging her duties as Headmistress. Thereafter, the petitioner got superannuated on 31.07.2017, but the payment has not been made to the petitioner for the post of Headmistress. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since 1988 to till 2017, the petitioner discharged her duties diligently as Officiating Headmistress, which has not been denied by the respondents. He has further submitted that there is neither any complaint against the petitioner nor any material has been brought on record to show that the petitioner did not possess due qualification for being appointed as Headmistress, but all the more, salary for the post of Headmistress has not been paid to the petitioner. He next submitted that the petitioner was only paid salary for the post of Assistant Teacher instead of for the post of Headmistress. He prays for allowing the present writ petition and issuance of mandamus.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not duly appointed as Headmistress, therefore, the salary for the post of Headmistress cannot be disbursed to her. He has further submitted that the petitioner was duty bound to discharge her duties as Headmistress till absence of any regular appointed Headmaster/Headmistress, therefore, the petitioner was rightly paid the salary for the post of Assistant Teacher. He prays for dismissal of this writ petition.

6. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the records.

7. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher and thereafter, the post of Headmaster fell vacant on 25.01.1988 on account of death of One Madhu Rani Srivastava. Thereafter, from 17.02.1988, the petitioner was discharging her duties as Headmistress without any break, compliant or interruption. In the counter affidavit, it has specifically been accepted that the petitioner was discharging her services as in-charge Headmistress. It is not the the case of the respondents that the petitioner does not possess the required qualification to be appointed as Headmistress in the institution in question, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to suffer from any inaction of the respondents for not appointing regular Headmaster. On the one hand, the petitioner was discharged her duties continuously as Headmistress without pay for the said post, on the other hand, she was only paid salary of the post of Assistant Teacher. It is not in dispute that the petitioner discharged her services as Headmistress in the institution in question for more than 29 years.

8. This Court in the case of Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (Civil Misc Writ Petition No 23627 of 2014), reported in 2014 (3) SCC 1644, the Full Bench of this Court, after considering the various judgments, has held that while discharging as Officiating Principal, the Principal would be entitled for salary of the said post. The relevant paragraph no.57-A of the said judgment is quoted as below:-

“57 ……

(i) …...

(ii) An officiating principal appointed under the Statutes of the University, which are pari materia to the provisions of Statute 10-B of the First Statutes would be entitled to claim the payment of salary in the regular grade of principal for the period during which he or she has worked until a regularly selected candidate has been appointed and has assumed charge of the office.”

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. P. Grover Vs State of Haryana and Anr, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1060, has held that the petitioner was discharging her duties as Basic Education Officer on an acting basis, and therefore, she is entitled for the salary of such higher post.

10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secy.- Cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma & Ors., AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2909 has held that if a person is promoted to the higher post or put to officiate on that post, or stop-gap arrangement is made to place him on higher post, entitle for higher salary.

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, after considering the above referred two judgments, has held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pay-scale for higher officiating post.

12. In view of the facts as stated above as well as law down by the Full Bench of this Court and various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled for higher salary even for ad-hoc basis on the post of Headmistress.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

14. A mandamus is issued in favour of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary along with all consequential benefits with effect from 17.02.1988 till date, she discharged her duties as Headmistress in the institution in question, within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the concerned respondent.

Order Date :- 07.05.2024

Pravesh Mishra/-