Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11866 (UTT)

CHANDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/568/2021 · 2025-07-09

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Subhash Upadhyay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:5923-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (S/B) No. 568 of 2021 Chandra Pal Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocates:- Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Standing Counsel for the State -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) 1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following relief:-. “i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and direction the respondents to pay the entire arrear of salary of Principal Grade to the petitioner w.e.f. 9.7.2016 when the charge of Principal was given till 31.1.2021 (the date of retirement of the petitioner).” 2. According to petitioner, he was appointed as Lecturer in a Government aided Intermediate College w.e.f. 27.10.1992 and his services as Lecturer were regularized on 28.10.1999. It is further his case that selection grade was given to him on 27.10.2002 and promotional pay-scale was also given to him on 27.10.2014. 3. From the pleadings made in the writ petition, it transpires that post of Principal of the concerned college fell vacant on 01.04.2013; even though petitioner was the senior most lecturer in the said college, however, charge as Officiating Principal was given to one Mr. Jagmohan Singh Thalwal on 1 2025:UHC:5923-DB 02.04.2013 and ultimately when petitioner represented the matter before authorities of Education Department, he was given charge as Principal on 09.07.2016. In this writ petition, petitioner has claimed the benefits which are available as Downgrade Principal to a person who officiated on the post of Principal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner meets all eligibility conditions for benefit of Downgrade Principal as per the Regulations, however, he has been wrongly denied such benefits. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that Management of the College had sent proposal for grant of benefit of Downgrade Principal to the petitioner, to Chief Education Officer on 12.12.2019 who referred the matter to Regional Additional Director of Education for necessary orders; however, office of Regional Additional Director of Education raised certain objections vide letter dated 07.02.2020; management of the college responded by issuing a letter whereby objections were rectified but thereafter office of Regional Additional Director of Education raised certain queries vide letter dated 17.06.2020 which the management could not respond and during the interregnum, petitioner was granted voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.01.2021. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner is not entitled to benefit of Downgrade Principal as he was not given officiating charge as Principal immediately upon occurrence of vacancy on the said post. The said submission, however, is bereft of merit as petitioner despite being senior most lecturer was denied charge 2 2025:UHC:5923-DB as Officiating Principal by the Management of the college and the Chief Education Officer remained a silent spectator, therefore, petitioner cannot be penalized for a wrong committed by the management. If petitioner is otherwise eligible for benefit as Downgrade Principal, same cannot be denied to him only on the ground that management did not immediately gave him the charge of Officiating Principal. 7. Without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Manager of the concerned institution and also the Regional Additional Director of Education, Pauri to resolve the issue and pass necessary order in the light of the relevant provisions of the Regulation, within two months from date of production of certified copy of this order. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. ____________________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 9th July, 2025 Mahinder 3 MAHINDE R SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca16897 9ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2 AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.07.11 10:27:38 +05'30'