Disposed

Tai Kaha v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Sept 2026WP(C)/449/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner, a school teacher appointed to discharge duties of In-charge Vice-Principal from 2018 at his own pay scale per a 2018 order, sought the pay scale and benefits attached to that post. The Gauhati High Court held that mere continuance of duties under an order specifying the respondent's own pay scale does not confer an enforceable right to corresponding financial benefits. The court ruled that issuing a direction for reconsideration would be futile and disposed of the petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 28.07.2025 in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The respondent authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 28.07.2025 in accordance with law.

Tai Kaha Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040015652026

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/449/2026

¶5

Tai Kaha

¶6

Son of Late Tai Tarak, presently posting at Govt Hr Sec School Sangram, PO and PS Sangram, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Commissioner Education, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.

¶9

2:The Secretary Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar

¶10

3:The Director of School Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Xavier Gyati,

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum, SC (Education)

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 18.09.2026

¶17

Heard Mr. X. Gyati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearing for all the respondents.

¶18

2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider his representation dated 28.07.2025 seeking grant of the pay scale and other financial benefits attached to the post of Vice-Principal/Headmaster.

¶19

3. Having considered the limited prayer made in this writ petition and as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.

¶20

4. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher (A) in the year 1996 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in the year 2012. By order dated 03.09.2018, the petitioner was allowed to discharge the duties of In-charge Vice-Principal at his own pay scale.

¶21

5. It is the case of the petitioner that since the year 2018, he has continuously been discharging the duties of In-charge Vice-Principal at Government Higher Secondary School, Sangram and, in the absence of a regular Principal, has also been performing the duties and responsibilities of the Principal. The petitioner has referred to the various academic, administrative and supervisory responsibilities discharged by him in such capacity, as well as to

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

the appreciation and awards received by him during the period. On the basis of the duties discharged by him over the years, the petitioner claims entitlement to financial enhancement in the pay scale of Vice-Principal/Headmaster.

¶24

6. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.07.2025 before the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, seeking grant of the pay scale of Vice-Principal/Headmaster along with other allowances, invoking, inter alia, the principle of equal wages for equal work under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the said representation, the petitioner referred to the fact that he had been discharging the duties of In-charge Vice-Principal since 2018 without receiving any corresponding financial benefit and requested that such financial enhancement be granted, at least from the current academic year. As the said representation was not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the same.

¶25

7. Mr. X. Gyati, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the representation dated 28.07.2025.

¶26

8. Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submits that he has no specific instructions as regards the representation stated to have been submitted by the petitioner. He, however, submits that the order dated 03.09.2018, under which the petitioner was allowed to discharge the duties of In-charge Vice-Principal, specifically provided that he would continue to discharge such duties at his own pay scale and would not be entitled to any remuneration or pay scale attached to the post of Vice-Principal at that stage.

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

10. The petitioner is a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), who was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher (A) in the year 1996 and was subsequently promoted as TGT in the year 2012. By order dated 03.09.2018, the petitioner was allowed to discharge the duties of In-charge Vice-Principal at his own pay scale. The petitioner has continued to discharge the said duties since then and, on that basis, has sought the pay scale and other financial benefits attached to the post of Vice-Principal/Headmaster.

¶30

11. A perusal of the order dated 03.09.2018, by which the petitioner was allowed to discharge the duties of In-charge Vice-Principal, shows that he was permitted to discharge such duties at his own pay scale and that he would not be entitled to any remuneration or pay scale attached to the post of VicePrincipal. Admittedly, the petitioner accepted the said arrangement and has thereafter continued to discharge the duties in terms of the said order. Mere continuance as In-charge Vice-Principal for a considerable period, therefore, cannot, by itself, confer upon the petitioner any enforceable right to claim the pay scale or other financial benefits attached to the post of Vice-Principal, contrary to the terms of the order under which he was permitted to discharge such duties.

¶31

12. It is settled law that the court would not issue a writ which would be futile or serve no useful purpose. In the present case, in view of the terms of the order dated 03.09.2018, no enforceable right in favour of the petitioner to claim the aforesaid financial benefits is accrued. A direction merely to consider the representation seeking such benefits would, therefore, be futile or serve no

¶32

Page No.# 5/5

¶33

useful purpose.

¶34

13. However, as insisted upon by Mr. X. Gyati, learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 28.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶35

14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Tai Kaha v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tai Kaha v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases