Disposed

Baboo Singh Shakya v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 May 2025WPSB/257/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Headmaster in a Government Aided High School upgraded to Intermediate College claimed Principal's salary from upgradation; the Chief Education Officer rejected the claim. The court held no promotion could predate creation of the post and upheld the rejection, but permitted representations for differential pay and Regulation 2.2 benefit for the interim period.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make representations for differential salary (24.06.1996-14.10.2003) to the school Manager and Regulation 2.2 benefit (15.10.2003-08.03.2004) to the DEO; authorities to decide within six mo

Baboo Singh Shakya Vs State of Uttarakhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:3495-DB

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB No. 257 of 2016 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3. Mr. Rohit Kumar, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Ishwari Dutt Paliwal, learned Addl. CSC for the State of Uttar Pradesh / respondent no. 5. 4. Petitioner was appointed as Headmaster in a Government Aided High School in the year 1990. The High School, where petitioner was serving, was upgraded as Intermediate College in the year 1996. Petitioner staked claim for salary for the post of Principal, Intermediate College from the date of upgradation of the school as intermediate college. His claim was rejected by Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated 31.05.2016. Petitioner has challenged said order in this writ petition. 5. From perusal of the order impugned, it is revealed that the High School, in which petitioner was appointed, was upgraded as Intermediate for commerce section only, vide Government Order dated 24.06.1996, but, post of Principal/ Teachers of Intermediate College were not immediately created, and posts were created vide Government Order dated 14.10.2003. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the Committee of Management, petitioner was regularly promoted as Principal, Intermediate College w.e.f. 09.03.2004.
			6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Committee of Management had recommended petitioner’s name for

¶3

2025:UHC:3495-DB

¶4

promotion as Principal, Intermediate College in the year 1996, immediately after upgradation of the High School as Intermediate College, therefore, petitioner is entitled for promotion as Principal, Intermediate College from 1996, with consequential benefits. 7. The said contention cannot be accepted. Since the post of Principal was created only on 14.10.2003, therefore, the recommendation, if any, made by the Committee of Management for petitioner’s promotion, earlier, is of no legal consequence, as no one can be promoted against a non-existent post. Since the post came into being on 14.10.2003, and on the recommendation of Committee of Management, petitioner was regularly promoted as Principal w.e.f. 09.03.2004, therefore, rejection of petitioner’s representation by Chief Education Officer cannot be faulted. 8. This Court concurs with the reasoning given by the Chief Education Officer. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. 9. The writ petition, however, is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation for difference of salary for the post of Principal between 24.06.1996 to 14.10.2003 to the Manager of the concerned school. Petitioner shall also be at liberty to make representation to the District Education Officer seeking benefit of Regulation 2.2 of Chapter-II of Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, for the service, he rendered as Principal between 15.10.2003 to 08.03.2004. If petitioner makes such representation within four weeks from today, the authority concerned shall take decision thereupon, within six months from the date of receipt of such representation, with certified copy of this order. (Ashish Naithani, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 06.05.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.05.08 11:12:19 -07'00'

Baboo Singh Shakya v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baboo Singh Shakya v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Gopal Pushkarana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Harsh Vardhan Mishra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hansa Dutt Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

State of Uttarakhand Vs Prem Singh Negi

State of Uttarakhand through Its Principal Secretary, Vs Markendey Prasad Gupta

Ashok Kumar Goel Vs National Insurance Company Limited