Aruna Ghosh vs State of U,P.and Others

S. R. Singh, J.—Heard Sri N. K. Pandey holding brief of Sri A. Kumar counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sheo Pujan Singh, Standing Counsel for State Authorities.

The petition on hand has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in C. T. Grade with effect from 19219S6 and in L. T. Grade with effect from 1921991. The basis of the claim is the Government Order, dated 19101989 as amended by G. O. dated 2121990.

Petitioner, it is not disputed, was appointed as a permanent Assistant Teacher in B. T. C. Grade on 1921989. He completed 5 years of substantive service in B. T. C. Grade on 1921986. Since he was possessed of B. A. B. Ed. degrees, he became entitled to C. T. Grade on completion of 5 years of substantive service in terms of Regulation 7(2) of Chapter II of the Regulations made under U, P. Intermediate Education Act which reads as under ;

The fact that the aforesaid provision was deleted by means of Notification No. 4168/15710(160)1991 T. C.Lucknow, dated 1981992 would not affect the right already acquired by petitioner. The Government Order dated 1981992 omitting Regulation 7(2) cannot be given retrospective effect so as to affect right already acquired by the petitioner under the said provision as it stood before its omission w. e. f, 1981992. The stand taken in the counteraffidavit that the petitioner was not entitled to C. T. Grade merely because of the omission of Regulation 7(2), in view of the notification, dated 1981992, cannot, therefore, be countenanced.

The next question that arises for consideration by the Court is : whether the petitioner is entitled to be given L. T. Grade in terms of paragraph 12 of the G. O. dated 19101989 which reads as below :

The aforesaid provision was amended by means of a subsequent G. O. dated 30111989/2121989 and the amended paragraph 12 reads as below :

It is evident that a C. T. Grade teacher would be entitled to get L. T. Grade if he has completed 5 years service in G. T. Grade and 10 years satisfactory service as a teacher and is possessed of the requisite training and other academic qualifications. The petitioner has certainly completed 5 years service in C. T. Grade but the question whether 10 years of his over all tenure as a teacher was satisfactory is a question which requires to be determined. In case it is found that his overall service as a teacher during last 10 years had been satisfactory, he would be entitled to L. T. Grade.

In view of the above discussion I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be given C. T. Grade w.e.f. 1921986 and his claim for L. T. Grade requires to be considered at the level of the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the body of judgment.

In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to refix the salary of the petitioner in C. T. Grade w.e.f. 1921986 and pay to him the arrears of salary and other emoluments accordingly. The District Inspector of Schools shall examine the petitioner''s claim for L. T. Grade in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the body of this judgment, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.