Chandigarh: CAT directs DPI Schools to pay salary as per designation

There is a difference of Rs 2,500 in the salary of a Headmistress and a Principal. The applicant is likely to get Rs 60,000 for the service as a Principal for two years from the DPI Schools.

Written by Swati Mahajan | Chandigarh | Published:September 13, 2016 5:18 am

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Monday directed the Director Public Instructions (DPI) Schools to pay the salary of an officiating Principal at the Government Senior Secondary School (GSS), Kaimbwala. The applicant has been serving as the officiating Principal of the school since October 2014 but was given a salary of a Headmistress.

The tribunal said, “The applicant is held entitled to the pay of a principal for the period she has been officiating. The condition that she will look after the work of a principal in her own pay and scale as a headmistress is held to be arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to pay to the applicant the difference in salary.”

There is a difference of Rs 2,500 in the salary of a Headmistress and a Principal. The applicant is likely to get Rs 60,000 for the service as a Principal for two years from the DPI Schools.

The applicant, Neelam, had sought relief from the tribunal stating that she was entitled to the pay of a Principal (as she was working as officiating Principal) for the period she worked at the said post.

With order dated September 26, 2014, the applicant being senior most Headmistress was posted to take up the job of a Principal in the school. It was also specified in the order that while working as a Principal she would continue to draw her own pay and scale (i.e. of Headmistress).

Neelam was posted to work as Principal in GSS by the Chandigarh Administration. On September 30, 2014, she attained the age of superannuation (58 years), but was granted extension in service for another year from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015. She was granted further extension in service for one more year and is now due to retire on September 30, 2016, at the age of 60.

With a letter dated January 30, 2015, records for promotion from the post of Headmistress to the post of Principal were called for, including that of the applicant. However, DPC for the said promotion has not been held since then.

She also alleged that the condition in the order that she has to look after the work of Principal in her own pay and scale is arbitrary and unsustainable. Since the applicant is performing the duty of higher office of Principal.

While responding to the application filed by her, the DPI Schools said it was clearly laid down in order passed on September 25/26, 2014, that the applicant was to look after the work of Principal in her own pay and scale and, therefore, having accepted it, she is stopped from claiming the pay of a Principal. As regards delay in promotion to the post of Principal, it is alleged that DPC could not be held due to objections received against seniority lists.