The court ruled that a reduction in pay without the Executive Committee's approval is invalid, emphasizing the necessity of following proper authority and procedure in employment matters.

JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioner through the medium of present writ petition has sought the following reliefs:

i) CERTIORARI, quashing the order bearing No. JKSS/1082/Adm 2003-9 dated 19-06-2014 by virtue of which periodical increments in favour of the petitioner was withheld.

ii) CERTIORARI, quashing the order bearing No. JKSS/1117/Adm/2764-72 dated 25-10-2014 by virtue of which the pay and grade of the petitioner was reduced.

iii) QUO WARRENTO, declaring the appointment of respondent No.4 as Principal J&K Sainik School Manasbal void ab-initio.

iv) MANDAMUS, commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner the pay attached to the post of Head-Master.

v) MANDAMUS, commanding the respondents not to make any recovery in view of and order bearing No. JKSS/1117/Adm/ 2764-72 dated 25-10-2014 by virtue of which the pay and grade of the petitioner was reduced.

2) It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is abandoning reliefs prayed at serial No.(i) and (iii) quoted above. The writ petition is, therefore, confined to the legality and validity of order dated 25.10.2014 (supra).

3) The facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties are that vide order dated 11.04.1985, the petitioner was appointed as Master in Mathematics subject in J&K Sainik School, Mansbal. He was placed in the selection grade of Masters in terms of the decision taken in the meeting of the Executive Committee of the respondent School held on 27.12.1991, whereafter a follow up order was issued on 26.08.1992. Since the post of Headmaster was lying vacant in the respondent School, as such, the Principal, who is also the Member Secretary of the School Executive Committee, vide his proposal dated 20.04.1994, recommended that the petitioner be appointed as Incharge Headmaster till the post is filled up by regular selection.

Pursuant to the said proposal, an order came to be issued on 18.08.1994, whereby the petitioner was adjusted as Incharge Headmaster of Sainik School, Mansbal. In terms of proposal dated 20.04.1994, the petitioner was to be paid charge allowance of Rs.575/ per month for holding the higher post of Headmaster.

4) According to the petitioner, he was not being paid either the charge allowance or the pay attached to the post of Headmaster though he was functioning as Incharge Headmaster and this prompted him to file a writ petition bearing SWP No.2130/1997 before this Court. The interim application filed along side the said writ petition came to be disposed of in terms of order dated 14.03.2002, whereby a direction was issued to the respondents that in case the petitioner is discharging the duties of Headmaster, they will release the salary in his favour till he works against the said post.

5) It seems that the aforesaid writ petition came to be finally disposed of on 08.04.2009 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his regularization. When case of the petitioner for regularisation was not considered by the respondents, he filed a contempt petition before this Court and during the pendency of the contempt petition, the petitioner’s claim was considered and the same was not found maintainable and an order to this effect came to be passed by the respondents on 22.10.2013.

6) In the meanwhile, in terms of Government Order No.835-Edu of 2012 dated 25.10.2012, respondent No.4 was appointed as Principal of the respondent School. The petitioner by way of present writ petition has thrown challenge to the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Principal but since he has given up the prayer for quashment of his appointment, as such, it is not necessary to narrate the facts pleaded in the writ petition in this regard.

7) According to the petitioner, respondent No.4, in order to settle a score against him, issued impugned order dated 19.06.2014 (supra), by virtue of which the periodical increments in his favour were withheld and he also issued imp