AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. JOSEPH, C.JÂ Â Â Â Â Â
There is delay of 271 days in filing this appeal. In the circumstances, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the delay in filing this appeal will
stand condoned. Delay condonation application will stand allowed.Â
Appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash the order dated 17.06.2015 passed by the second
respondent. The further direction sought was to provide promotion and all other consequential benefits to the writ petitioner considering her in C.T.
Grade w.e.f. 01.07.1979.
Briefly put, the case of the writ petitioner is as follows:Â Writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Girls
Junior High School, Pabou, District Pauri Garhwal on 01.06.1978. Later, she was transferred on the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Girls
Junior High School Pabou, District Pauri Garhwal on the same pay scale. Still later, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Education
Department for C.T. Grade pay scale of Rs. 450-750, the writ petitioner forwarded her documents. She was appointed vide order dated 04.10.1985
in the C.T. Grade pay scale of Rs. 450-720. Thereafter, the Government Teachers Association, Uttar Pradesh filed a writ petition before the
Allahabad High Court and prayed to grant the C.T. Grade pay scale of Rs. 450-720 w.e.f. 01.07.1979 to the Government Girls Junior High School
Teachers, as it is providing to Parishadiya Junior High School/Aided Junior High Schools and Government Model Schools. There was an order
passed by the Allahabad High Court and pursuant to the same, order dated 08.07.1992 was passed by the State Government. It is stated that the
writ petitioner was granted benefit of amended pay scale, according to the said Government Order, w.e.f. 01.07.1979 and the arrears of the period
from 01.07.1979 to 31.12.1985. Thereafter, reference is made to order dated 29.04.2015. As per the said Government Order, it appears that the
writ petitioner was given benefit of selection grade w.e.f. the year 1991 and promotional pay scale w.e.f. the year 2003. Thereafter, the writ
petitioner made a representation on 21.05.2015 praying that she has been granted the benefit of C.T. Grade w.e.f. 01.07.1979 by the Government
Order, which has been issued pursuant to the order of the Allahabad High Court and, therefore, the seniority of the of the writ petitioner in C.T. Grade
w.e.f. 01.07.1979 and promotion on the higher post may be granted to her (Annexure No. 4). It is thereupon that the impugned order was passed
recalling the earlier order dated 29.04.2015 stating therein that the writ petitioner’s earlier period of service from C.T. Grade pay scale to L.T.
Grade pay scale could not be counted and the writ petitioner was not entitled to get the selection/promotional pay scale according to her earlier
services and she could not be provided the seniority according to her earlier services. It is alleged that the earlier order dated 29.04.2015 was
cancelled arbitrarily and illegally. Counter affidavit was filed. In the counter affidavit, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:
“7. That in reply to the contents of para 5 of the writ petition it is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in BTC
grade on 12.07.1978. The petitioner applied for Assistant Teacher CT grade and was given appointment as Assistant teacher CT grade in the pay
scale of Rs. 450-720 on 08.10.1987 in Government Girls Junior High School, Paidul. It is submitted that the cadre of Basic School teachers and that of
Upper Primary School are different and selection grade is admissible only after completing 10 years of satisfactory services in a particular cadre.
There is no provision to add the services rendered in a different cadre for the grant of benefit on selection grade.Â
That in reply to the contents of para 6 of the writ petition it is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher BTC Grade
in the pay scale of Rs. 250-320 by the then Regional Girls Inspector of School, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Garhwal vide its order no.
Sn0/nee0/68/paanch-12(7)/77-78 dated 06.01.1978 in Government Girls Junior High School, Pabou, Pauri Garhwal. The petitioner submitted her joining
on 12.01.1978 thereafter, vide Government Order No. 3542/15-2-92-34(158)/89 dated 08.07.1992 the pay scale of the post of Assistant Teacher
Government Girls Junior High School was upgraded to Rs. 450-720 but the post was not upgraded.Â
In the year 1985 the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher CT grade (Pay scale of Rs. 450-720) in the Government Girls Junior High
School and after her selection the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher CT grade on 08.10.1985 in Government Girls Junior High School,
Paidul, Pauri Garhwal.Â
Vide Government order no. 655/maa0/2002 dated 12.07.2002 the person is eligible for selection grade after completing 10 years of satisfactory
services. The petitioner from the date of his joining on 12.01.1978 has worked as Assistant Teacher in Government Junior High School for a period of
only 7 years thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher CT grade on 08.10.1985 in Government Girls Junior High
School, Paidul, Pauri Garhwal. It is submitted that since the petitioner has joined fresh as Assistant Teacher CT grade therefore, the petitioner was
eligible for selection grade after 10 years of services on 08.10.1985. It is further submitted that the petitioner is demanding the selection grade from
01.07.1979. It is submitted that according to the Government order a person is entitled for a selection grade after 10 years on one post. Here it is also
stated that the cadre of Assistant Teacher of Basic School and that of Upper Primary School is different and the petitioner cannot be granted the
benefits of selection grade treating her services continuous in the BTC grade because the petitioner’s appointment was a fresh appointment as
Assistant Teacher CT Grade in Government Girls Junior High School.Â
That in reply to the contents of para 8 of the writ petition it is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in BTC
grade on 12.01.1978. The petitioner applied for Assistant Teacher CT grade and was given appointment as Assistant Teacher CT grade in the pay
scale of Rs. 450-720 on 08.10.1985 in Government Girls Junior High School, Paidul. It is submitted that with the cadre of Basic School Teachers and
that of Upper Primary School are different and selection grade is admissible only after completing 10 years of satisfactory services in a particular
cadre. There is no provision to add the services rendered in a different cadre for the grant of benefit on selection grade. It is submitted that the
petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher BTC Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 250-320 by the then Regional Girls Inspector of School,
Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Garhwal vide its order no.Sn0/nee0/68/paanch-12(7)/77-78 dated 06.01.1978 in Government Girls Junior High School, Pabou,
Pauri Garhwal. The petitioner submitted her joining on 12.01.1978 thereafter, vide Government Order No. 3542/15-2-92-34(158)/89 dated 08.07.1992
the pay scale of the post of Assistant Teacher Government Girls Junior High School was upgraded to Rs. 450-720 but the post was not upgraded.Â
In the year 1985 the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant CT grade (Pay scale of RS. 450-720) in the Government Girls Junior High School and
after her selection the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher CT grade on 08.10.2015 in Government Girls Junior High School, Paidul, Pauri
Garhwal.
That the contents of para 11 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the petitioner has been granted benefit of selection
grade after completing 10 years of service from 08.10.1985 and the petitioner has already been granted promotion to the post of Lecturer on
08.10.2007 after completing 12 years of service and in view thereof the averments made in the writ petition are devoid of merit and liable to be
dismissed.â€Â
No rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioner.  Â
The learned Single Judge took the view that the benefit was given to the writ petitioner by order dated 29.04.2015 and the said order has been
recalled. Seven years’ benefit was granted under the order dated 29.04.2015 and the said order was recalled by the impugned order and all this
was done without affording any opportunity to the writ petitioner. The impugned order, therefore, was interfered with and the writ petition was
allowed and the order dated
17.06.2015 was quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.Â
In appeal, we heard Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand/appellants and Mr. Mangal Singh
Chauhan, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner.Â
Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants/respondents would submit that in the order dated 29.04.2015 itself, it was mentioned that if the benefit,
which was being given, is found to be contrary to the Government Order, it will be liable to be cancelled. According to him, the case set up is that
the benefit of the services rendered prior to being appointed as C.T. Grade teacher in the year 1985 could not be counted for grant of
selection/promotional pay scale.
Per contra, Mr. Mangal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the benefit given 22 years ago cannot
be taken away at this distance of time. This benefit of C.T. Grade was given pursuant to the order of the Allahabad High Court and on the basis of
the same the Government Order was issued on 08.07.1992 and on the basis of the same, the order was passed. Â
The case set up, as we have seen, by the appellants appears to be that the writ petitioner has been given the benefit of selection grade, which is
given after completion of 10 years service in the year 1995 and promotional pay scale in the year 2007, apparently, after 12 years of giving the
selection grade. It is the further case that the benefit of pay scale of C.T. Grade alone was given to the writ petitioner and the services rendered in
the earlier post cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of giving selection grade.Â
We notice that the only ground, on which the learned Single Judge has interfered with the impugned order, is violation of principle of natural
justice. The learned Single Judge has not gone into the merits of the matter. Therefore, in this case, when the impugned order was interfered with
on the ground that principle of natural justice was violated, we do not think that portion of the order, as such, is to be interfered with. We only modify it
by making it clear that it will not stand in the way of the appellants issuing notice, giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner and taking steps for
rescinding the order dated 29.04.2015.
We record the submission of Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Standing Counsel that fresh steps, if any, will be taken within a period of six weeks
from today.   Â
Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
           Â
 Â