The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an individual who was performing the duties of a Head Master on an officiating basis is legally entitled to receive the salary of the Head Master for the period during which he occupied that role. The case involved Uma Kant Pandey, who, while continuing in his substantive lower post, carried out the functions of Head Master for more than three years. Despite this, the respondents (in this instance, the Railways) denied him the higher pay-scale associated with the Head Master post, arguing that he had never been formally promoted to that role and that no explicit rule entitled him to that pay.
The Court rejected this argument. It observed that if Pandey was being held responsible for the institutional liabilities of a Head Master — for example being held accountable when there were lapses in managing the school — then it was wholly inconsistent for the authorities to deny him the higher pay by claiming his work was merely “routine in nature.” The Court pointed out that the school’s functioning for more than three years under his charge could not plausibly be maintained if he had merely done ordinary teaching duties.
The bench took the view that his sustained performance over three years and four months (from 1 December 2004 to 6 March 2008) demonstrated that he was working in an officiating capacity, rather than simply “holding additional charge” without real substantive responsibility. Based on this, the Court directed that he should be paid at the Head Master pay scale of ₹6,500–10,500 for that entire period, after adjusting for the salary he had already received in his substantive teaching role (as a TGT).
Furthermore, the Court adopted the doctrine of quantum meruit, a principle that entitles a person to be paid what is deserved for the work actually done, even if the person was never made a regular incumbent of the post. The Court drew on precedents, including a Supreme Court decision in Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor of Port Blair, to support this conclusion. It also cited another Supreme Court judgment (Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh vs. Hari Om Sharma) that emphasized public policy considerations: denying pay for actual work done in the higher role, even in “stop-gap” arrangements or officiation, would be unjust and impermissible.
In addition to ordering the back pay for the higher scale, the Court held that interest should be paid on the difference at 6% per annum, counting from the date Pandey filed his original application in 2010 until the date when the payment is actually made.
Thus, the High Court granted relief to Pandey by mandating that he receive the salary corresponding to the Head Master’s post for the years during which he officiated, holding that performance of the duties is the crucial criterion, not formal promotion.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.