Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88974 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51232 of 2013 Petitioner :- Dharam Singh Sharma And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 5 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Niraj Upadhyay,Rohit Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner today in Court, is taken on record. 3. The present writ petition is filed for the following relief:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Order dated 05.09.2013 issued by the respondent No.2, to the respondent no.3 and order dated 29.06.2013 issued by respondent no.2 to the respondent no.3 (annexure 5 and 5A) to this Writ Petition. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover and deduct any amount from the petitioners pensionary benefits. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to finalize the pensionary benefits to the petitioners on the basis of last drawn salary by them and without deduction." 4. Considering the submissions this Court has passed the following interim order on 19.09.2013:- "Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. Issue notice to respondent nos. 5 and 6. Six weeks' time is accorded to each one of the respondent to file counter affidavit. Two weeks' time thereafter is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit. List this matter after eight weeks. It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that by virtue of being senior most incumbent in the institution concerned they have been appointed as ad- hoc Principal of the institution concerned and, accordingly, in consonance with the provisions as contained under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 and as per the view taken by this Court in the case of Narbdeshwar Mishra Vs. The District Inspector of School, Deoria & others 1982 UPLBEC 171, Soloman Morar Jha Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria & others 1985 UPLBEC 113; Smt. Rama Rati Vs. State of U.P. through Education Secretary, Lucknow & others 1987 UPLBEC 1009; Pushkar Singh Verma Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Meerut & others 1999 (3) UPLBEC 1728 and in the case of Jhamnan Lal Gangwar Versus State of U.P. and others 2007(2) UPLBEC 1407 wherein it has been held that senior most teacher appointed as officiating principal, is entitled for salary and specially when arrangement has been made for more than 30 days on the post of Principal, then incumbent is entitled for salary on the post of Principal. Petitioners are further placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of Uttaranchal High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55 of 2011 (S/B) Kanti Prasad Dadpuri and 3 others Versus State of Uttarakhand and others, decided on 20.6.2012 wherein it has been held that as the petitioner was appointed as Officiating Principal of the college on a vacancy, which exceeded 30 days, the respondents should make the payment of salary to the said petitioner from the date when he started officiating as the Principal in the college and if such pay was not given, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of this, petitioners submit that rightful fixation has been made in their favour for according salary in Principal's grade. Petitioners submit that now they have attained their age of superannuation with the aforementioned grade in question and after the retirement, amount in question has been sought to be recovered on the premises that wrong fixation was made and petitioners were not at all entitled for the same. Prima-facie the arguments, which have been so advanced, appears to have some substance and requires consideration of this Court, in view of this, till the next date of listing, the amount in question, which has already been paid to the petitioner, qua the same recovery shall not be pressed." 5. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court and the same was decided by the judgment dated 29.05.2017 in Writ Petition Service Single No.9395 of 2017 (Rajendra Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). 6. Admittedly, facts are not in dispute but learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 33, as the 2nd respondent did not consider any factual aspect while passing the impugned order. 7. In view of the categorical observation on a similar issue, the impugned order dated 05.09.2013 and 29.06.2013 cannot be sustained and are quashed. The respondents shall recompute the pension of the petitioner treating the last pay drawn by the petitioner as an ad-hoc Principal. While doing so, the respondents shall be guided by the judgment dated 29.05.2017 in the case of Rajendra Prasad Singh (supra) as also the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 33. The fresh order, as directed above, shall be passed within a period of two months. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad