AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj K. Tiwari, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being adjudicated by this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, facts of WPSS No. 1497 of 2014 are being considered.
The Government of Uttarakhand issued one Government Order dated 27.01.2001 to deal with the problem of shortage of Teachers in Government Schools, which provided that vacancies available on the post of Lecturer and Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) shall be filled by giving temporary appointment to qualified persons, who shall be called Shiksha Bandhu and will be entitled to honorarium of Rs. 3,500/- per month. The said Government Order contemplated constitution of a Screening Committee headed by Vice Principal, D.I.E.T. for holding selection.
Pursuant to the Government Order, advertisements were issued in different districts. Petitioners responded to such advertisements and they were appointed as Shiksha Bandhu in the year 2001 on the recommendation of Screening Committee.
In the absence of any regular selection for the vacancies against which petitioners were appointed, they were permitted to continue as Shiksha Bandhu year after year. Ultimately, in the year 2006, they were given status of ad-hoc Lecturer, consequently petitioners started getting salary in regular pay scale. Thereafter, in the year 2013, their services were regularized against the post of Lecturer under the Regularization Rules of 2011.
In the year 2016, the Regional Additional Directors of Education granted selection grade to the petitioners, which is admissible upon completion of 10 years of satisfactory service on the same post. Consequently, the Grade Pay of the petitioners was upgraded from Rs. 4,800/- to Rs. 5,400/- in pay band of Rs. 9,300-34,800/-. While granting benefit of selection grade, the services rendered by petitioners in ad-hoc capacity were also taken into account, or else they had not completed 10 years of service on the post of Lecturer.
Subsequently, the Regional Director of Education, Garhwal cancelled the order, whereby benefit of selection grade was given to the petitioner. The cancellation order was passed by Regional Additional Director Garhwal on 16.12.2017, in which he has relied upon one letter issued by Joint Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand on 08.12.2017. The Principal, Government Inter College, Vedikhal issued a consequential order on 27.12.2017, whereby Grade Pay of the petitioner was downgraded from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 4,800/-. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the cancellation order passed by Regional Additional Director of Education Garhwal on 16.12.2017 and consequential order dated 27.12.2017 issued by Principal, Government Inter College, Vedikhal. Petitioner has also challenged the letter issued by Joint Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand on 08.12.2017 and the consequential letter issued by Director, Secondary Education on 13.12.2017.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The only controversy involved in this writ petition, is whether the services rendered by a Lecturer in ad-hoc capacity before his regularization can be taken into account for grant of selection grade.
According to the petitioners, they were entitled to selection grade in terms of Government Orders issued from time to time, as they had rendered continuous service of 10 years in 2016, therefore, they were rightly given selection grade.
Per Contra, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand submits that selection grade is admissible only after rendering 10 years of satisfactory service in regular/substantive capacity and ad-hoc services are not to be taken into account for grant of selection grade. By referring to para Kha (4) of the Government Order dated 12.07.2002, he submits that selection grade is to be granted when a Teacher does not get promotion within the prescribed period. According to him, before regularization of their services, petitioners had no right to be considered for promotion, therefore, the service rendered by them before their regularization is to be ignored while computing 10 years service.
According to the petitioner, he was not heard while downgrading his Grade Pay. It is further the contention of the petitioner that reduction in Grade Pay entails civil and evil consequences, therefore, the Grade Pay of the petitioner could not have been downgraded without hearing him. Paragraph no. 18 of the writ petition is extracted below:
"18 . That it is submitted that before passing the impugned orders, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was ever given to the petitioner and admittedly, reduction of Grade Pay/pay scale is a major penalty and also an accrued/vested civil rights, which cannot be taken away without due procedure of law. Moreover, any action which has civil or evil consequences to any person, cannot be taken behind the back of the concerned person. As such, in this view of the matter also, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed forthwith."
No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents despite several opportunities. However, learned Chief Standing Counsel fairly submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner while downgrading his Grade Pay.
It is settled position in law that no order, which entails civil or evil consequences to a person, can be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to him.
Downgrading the Grade Pay of petitioners from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 4,800/- has civil consequences to the petitioners, therefore, it could have been done only after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Considering the fact that petitioners were not afforded opportunity of hearing before downgrading their Grade Pay from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 4,800/-, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) Petitioners shall submit representations in support of their claim for selection grade to the concerned Additional Director of Education by registered post as well as by e-mail/Fax within three weeks from today.
(ii) The Additional Director of Education concerned will consider the representations submitted by the petitioners and shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the Government Order dated 08.12.2017, within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representations. Petitioners shall not be entitled to personal hearing.
(iii) For a period of eight weeks or till decision on petitioners' representations, whichever is earlier, the cancellation order passed by Additional Director of Education and consequential orders issued by Principal of the concerned Government Inter College, shall be kept in abeyance.
In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to submit representations within three weeks to the Additional Director, they shall not be entitled to protection of this order and the cancellation orders passed against them shall stand revived.
Let a certified copy of this order be issued by 30.05.2019.