In a writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court to challenge an order whereby the petitioner’s original application was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner as per the higher scale admissible to the post of Head Master (Junior Wing) with an interest of 6% per annum.

The said application was filed to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner’s salary in the scale of Rs. 6500-10,500, admissible to the post of Head Master (Junior Wing), from 01-12-2004 to 06-03-2008, along with arrears and interest.

The petitioner was working as a Trained Graduate Teacher in Railway Inter College, Mughalsarai, Chandauli, with a pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. Since the Head Master (Junior Wing) superannuated on 30-11-2004, the petitioner was instructed to work as Teacher In-Charge by an order dated 03-11-2004, and he served in this post until 06-03-2008. The petitioner raised a grievance regarding non-payment of the higher pay scale.

Not only did the respondents refrain from taking an action, but they also issued a charge sheet against the petitioner, alleging that he failed to maintain integrity towards his duties as Head Master (Junior Wing). The petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceedings, and the appellate authority allowed the appeal while absolving him of the charges. Even then, his request for a higher pay scale was not considered. Hence, the petitioner filed the original application.

While dismissing the original application, the Tribunal accepted the respondents’ defence that no provision was present on record to indicate that the order dated 03-11-2004 indicated that he would work as Teacher In-Charge till the posting of a permanent incumbent and that he would be granted additional allowance. Hence, the present petition was filed.

The Court noted that when the petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings, in an office memorandum dated 12-08-2005, his designation was mentioned as ‘Head Master (Junior Wing)’. It was also noted that no punishment was imposed on the petitioner in the departmental proceedings, and that he was continuously referred to as the Head Master of the Junior Wing. Thus, the Court held that it could not be said that the respondents did not treat the petitioner’s work in the capacity of Head Master.

The Court noted the charges levied against the petitioner and held that they could not be treated as routine work, but as duties of a person working as a full-fledged Head of the institution. The Court said that the words ‘Teacher In-Charge’ were being read by the respondents in a manner suitable to them, rather than in the correct perspective.

Further, the Court found that it was clear that the respondents intended to take work from the petitioner as Head Master until the posting of a permanent incumbent. The Court said that the school could not have functioned for over three years had the petitioner performed only routine work, and that the petitioner’s work could be said to be in an officiating capacity.

The Court found it strange that the respondents were referring to office memoranda or administrative instructions without annexing them and stated that the present case was not one where the petitioner was given additional charge of a post ‘which was not filled up before’ and that the defence based upon instructions 646 and 648(e) of the Railway Instructions had no substance.

The Court referred to various cases and opined that the Tribunal had not examined the record of proceedings thoroughly while dismissing the original application, which is why the impugned order could not be sustained, and it was held that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought by him before the Tribunal.

Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner’s salary for the subject period, after adjusting for the salary he received as a Trained Graduate Teacher. It was also directed that the petitioner be paid simple interest on the difference of pay at 6% per annum from the date of filing the original application within two months.

Appearances:

For Petitioner – Amardeo Singh

For Respondents – A.S.G.I., Agam Narain Roy