C. Joyce and Others vs State of Kerala and Others

K. Sreedharan, J.—These Original Petitions relate to the time bound promotion given to the teachers. By consent of counsel appearing on either side, I am disposing of these Original Petitions by this common judgment. Two Original Petitions, which came up for admission today, namely O.P. Nos. 4443/92 and 4483/92, are also disposed of along with this batch on agreement given by the learned Government Pleader.

In the case of some of the Petitioners, who are High School Assistants in private schools, notice to Managers and concerned Headmasters have not been served. Even so, it was argued at the bar that service of notice on them is not necessary because the principle governing time bound promotion laid down by this Court is to be implemented by Government while disbursing the salary of those teachers as well. Therefore, it was submitted that such of those Original Petitions are not to be excluded from the group. In view of this submission, I am disposing of those petitions as well, because Respondents who have not been served are not personally affected adversely.

Government issued G.O. (P) 515/85/Fin., dated 16th September 1985 while accepting the IV Pay Commission Report. By that, it was provided that employees in the revised scales of pay ranging from Rs. 550-800 to Rs. 1150-2270 will be allowed promotion to Higher Grade on completion of 10 years of service and a second higher grade after either 10 years of service in the first higher grade or a total service of 20 years in the two grades together, whichever is earlier. G.O. (P) 480/89/Fin., dated 1st November 1989 was issued on accepting V Pay Commission Report. Clause 10 of that order provides for time bound grade promotions. That clause is in the following terms:

The revised scheme of time bound grade promotions will be as follows with reference to the scales of pay on initial recruitment:

(i) Employees in the revised scales of pay ranging from Rs. 750-1025 to Rs. 1050-1830 will be allowed promotion to higher grade on completion of 10 years of service, a second higher grade after either 10 years of service in the first higher grade or a total service of 20 years in the two grades together whichever is earlier and, a third higher grade on completion of a total service of 25 years in the three grades, together on the following pattern:

SI. No. Scale of pay 10 year higher grade Rs. 20 year higher grade Rs. 25 year higher grade Rs.

750-1025 775�1160 805-1190 825-1290

775-1160 805-1190 825-1290 845-1370

805-1190 825-1290 845�1370 905-1490

825-1290 950-1590 1000-1710 1050-1830

845-1370 1000�1710 1050-1830 1100-2070

865-1450 1000-1710 1220-2150 1250�2230

905-1490 1000-1710 1220-2150 1250-2230

950-1590 1050-1830 1250-2230 1330-2555

1000�1710 1220-2150 1330-2555 1370�2640

1050-1830 1220-2150 1330-2555 1370-2640

High School Assistants come within item 9 in the above schedule. On completion of 25 years of total service, a High School Assistant is entitled to be placed in the scale of pay 30-2555.

A few High School Assistants joined service as L.P.S.A. U.P.S.A. or P.D. Teachers. Subsequently they were promoted as H.S. As. On their completing 10 years, 20 years or 25 years of service, they claim time bound grade promotions. In other words, they pray for reckoning the service rendered by them in the cadre of L.P.S.A., U.P.S.A. and P.D. Teachers for getting time bound promotion. Government took a stand that a High School Assistant who has put in 10 years, 20 years or 25 years of service in the cadre of High School Assistant alone will be entitled to get the benefits of the above noted orders issued on accepting the IV and V Pay Commission Reports. This stand of the Government was challenged before this Court in O.P. 2358 of 1987. This Court took the view that the service rendered by a High School Assistant in the category of L.P.S.A./U.P.S.A./P.D. Teacher should also be reckoned along with the service as H.S.A., for granting time bound grade promotion. Government challenged that decision in W.A. 382/1991, without success. Later, they approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP 14673/1991. That petition was also dismissed. In this circumstance, Government are bound to grant time bound grade promotion to High School Assistants, reckoning the service rendered by them in the cadre of L.P.S.A., U.P.S.A. and P.D. Teacher as well. When this Court and the Supreme Court stated the law, Government and its functionaries should have followed the same in all cases. The mere fact that Petitioners herein were not parties to the earlier proceedings, is no reason to deny them the benefit laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to quote the observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in O.P. 8814/1984 and connected petitions:

True, persons like the Petitioners who had a legitimate claim did rot approach the Supreme Court, but there is no rationalisation to take them to task or castigate them for not having litigated. Such an approach is uncivilised, irrational and unjust.

When this Court and the Supreme Court interpret a provision of law, that will bind the Government. In similar situations Government are to give effect to that statement of law in all circumstances, whether the aggrieved party which approached the Government for relief was party, to the earlier proceedings or not. If the party''s rights are to be decided oh the basis of the law stated by this Court, the Government should not shirk from its obligation to act in conformity with the earlier decision. It the Government and its functionaries had taken Steps in conformity with the law stated by this Court and the Supreme Court, the Petitioners in these Original Petitions would not have been compelled to move this Court by spending huge amounts. Government should have granted the benefits that were extended to the Petitioners in the cases decided by this Court to these Petitioners without driving them to this Court. Respondents are directed to grant the time bound grade promotions to the Petitioners in these cases and to disburse the monetary benefits, as per the provisions contained in 346 G.O. (P) 515/85/Fin., dated 16th September 1985 and G.O. (P) 480/89/Fin., dated 1st November 1989, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Since the above direction will give a quietus to the grievances of the individual Petitioners in the various cases, I am not individually examining the claims put forward by them in these cases. This exercise must be carried out by the concerned educational authorities without any delay.

Original Petitions are allowed in the above terms.