Officiating principals cannot be deprived of the benefits that accrue to them, and their entitlement to salary is based on the correct principle of law.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:

“(1) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant salary of the post of Principal to the petitioner from the date when the petitioner took charge as officiating Principal in the institution i.e. 1-4-2019 as per the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 3088-3089 of 2020 (State of Uttarakhand vs. Mohan Chandra Pathak) and in the terms of the order dated 20-6-2012 passed by this Hon'ble court in Writ Petition No. 55 of 2011 Kanti Prasad Dadpuri vs. State and Others.

(2) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the arrear of the salary of the post of principal to the petitioner from the date of appointment as officiating principal to till the date of granting pay scale of principal.

(3) a any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(4) award cost of the petition to the Petitioner.”

2. As it appears from the reliefs, the petitioner is claiming salary for the post of Principal from the date when he took the charge as an officiating Principal in the Institution, i.e. 01.04.2019, and this claim is based on a judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court dated 20.06.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 55 (S/B) of 2011 titled as Kanti Prasad Dadpuri vs. State and Others, a copy of which is enclosed along with this petition as Annexure No. 7.

3. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of this Court dated 20.06.2012 was challenged before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, vide judgment and order dated 06.01.2017, while declining to interfere with the said judgment, dismissed the Special Leave Petition. While dismissing the said Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court clearly observed that it will be open to the State to strictly enforce the Rules and Regulations which require the regular principal to be appointed within the stipulated time and where there is violation, the State is at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

4. A further reference has been made by the petitioner regarding one Mr. Mohan Chandra Pathak, who was appointed as an officiating Principal, and who later on vide order dated 09.08.2012 was promoted in the downgraded pay-scale of Principal, and after completing five years in the downgraded pay-scale of Principal, he was granted pay-scale of Principal. This incumbent filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 108 (S/B) of 2018, and this Court vide order dated 11.04.2018 disposed of the said writ petition in the light of the judgment dated 20.06.2012 rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 55 (S/B) of 2011.

5. It is further contended by the petitioner that against the said judgment dated 11.04.2018, a review application-being Review Application No. 1669 of 2018 was filed by the respondents, on the ground that by Notification No. 504 dated 18.10.2011, an amendment was made in the Regulations, however, this Notification was not dealt with in the said judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court. The said review application was dismissed on 26.07.2019, and being aggrieved with the same, a special leave petition-being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 1505/2020 was filed before the Supreme Court. In the said special leave petition, both the judgment and order dated 11.04.2018 passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 108 of 2018 as well as the order dated 26.07.2019 passed in Review Application No. 1669 of 2018 were challenged, and the said special leave petition was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 31.01.2020.

6. At this juncture, it is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Supreme Court, which reads as under:

“We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. Learned co