Ganesh Dutt Sharma vs District Inspector of Schools Bijnor

A.K. Yog, J.—List revised. Shri Surendra Prasad, Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner, to press this petition.

Sri R.C. Shukla, representing Respondent No. 4 and Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 1 present.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

I have perused the petition. Petitioner, who was working as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in a recognised College, as contemplated under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, claims appointment by promotion as Lecturer (Hindi). Petitioner claimed that he was not being promoted. Petitioner claimed that he was entitled to and should be considered for appointment by promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) which fell under the promotional quota. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of Respondent No. 1 (District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor), who did not decide his representation.

It is not disputed at the Bar that the petitioner has already attained age of superannuation about a year in the past. It is true that representations of the petitioner dated 1961991 (Annexure 5), 2061991 (Annexure 6) and 2261991 (Annexure 7), referred to in Paragraph Nos. 12,13 and 17 of the writ petition, were not decided by the concerned educational authorities.

Even if the petitioner has attained age of superannuation, he was entitled for decision of his representations. In case it is found by District Inspector of Schools that petitioner was entitled to be appointed on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) by promotion the same will drastically change his status and make him entitled to higher emoluments as well as better postretiral benefits. The fact that petitioner has attained age of superannuation cannot be a relevant circumstance to deny adjudication of his claim.

Petitioner asks for payment of the balance, i.e., difference between the pay received as Assistant Teacher, (L.T Grade) and the notional pay which he would have received, if appointed on the post of Lecturer.

The other relief claimed by the petitioner is to quash impugned order dated 1571991 passed by District Inspector of Schools. This Court is not inclined to grant this relief in exercise of its power under Article 226, Constitution of India as it will disturb the position of Respondent No. 4 Gyan Bir Singh even though petitioner has already retired.

In case District Inspector of Schools finds that the claim of the petitioner is sustainable under law and that he was entitled to be appointed by promotion on the post of Lecturer then he will be entitled to notional promotion and consequently payment of difference in pay by taking into account notional increments, etc. along with 12% simple interest per annum within two months from the date of passing of his order under this judgment. In case, petitioner is found entitled to Lecturer''s grade, as indicated above he shall consequently be entitled to claim retiral benefits including pension, treating him to have retired as Lecturer etc. It is, however, made clear, that in case educational authorities come to a decision against the petitioner, then the petitioner shall be entitled to no relief in this judgment. It may be noted that no one may be made to suffer because of the fact that the writ petition has remained pending in this Court and it will not disentitle the petitioner to seek his effective remedy.

The writ petition is allowed in part subject to conditions indicated above. Interim order dated 2281991 stands discharged. There will be no order as costs.