Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138370 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7568 of 2020 Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bajrang Bahadur Singh,Satya Prakash Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter/order of fixation of salary of the petitioner as lecturer dated 24.06.2020 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure No.5). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 04.07.2020 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure No.6). III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to grant pension to petitioner for the post of Principal on the basis of last pay drawn (Rs.1,02,800/-) by him Principal of Janta Inter College, Kaithwadi, District- Meerut and to continuously pay same month by month along with entire arrears of pension so fixed along with penal interest." 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as officiating Principal on 01.07.2005 and the said appointment was approved by District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, vide order dated 28.03.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner has been granted salaries of the Principal and he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020. Almost he worked as officiating Principal more than 14 years. In the said circumstances, he is entitled to pensionary benefits based on salaries attached to the post of Principal. But surprisingly, the respondents have calculated pensionary benefits based on salaries attached to the post of lecturer instead of Principal. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. As this Court has already considered the identical issue in Writ- A No.2733 of 2023 Satya Prakash Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others and has held in paragraph nos.11 and 12 as follows: "11. Since the concurrent Bench in the case of Virsh Bhan Sharma (supra) has not noticed either the Narisingh Rai's case or the reference answered by the Full Bench (supra), it can not be taken as a binding precedent and so I am not bound by the view taken in Virsh Bhan's case. 12. In the present case it is not disputed that the petitioner had held the position of officiating principal of the institution which was a substantive post and with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools he was also paid salary as his signatures were attested as such, and accordingly, I hold him to be entitled to pension as would be admissible in law otherwise, on the basis of last pay drawn by the petitioner as principal of the institution." 5. In view of the above observations as facts are not in dispute, the present writ petition is also disposed of with the directions to the respondents to calculate pension of the petitioner on the basis of last drawn as salaries attached to the post of Principal and release all monetary benefits to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad