AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following reliefs:
I) That the respondents may kindly be directed to revise the salary of the applicant on the basis of pay scale of the post i.e. Rs.5800-8200, existing at the time of appointment of the Applicant and to also quash Rule -2(f) of the Notification dated 20th April, 1998, appended along with as Annexure A- 4.
II) That the impugned order/letter (Annexure A-8) (A-8/A) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
III) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the applicant the perks and allowances as admissible and to give the benefit of Office Memos No. Fin (C)-B(7)-3/98, dated 2 8.11.1999, 5.4.2000, 27.07.2000, 18.11.2000, Dearness Allowance 20.09.2001 and subsequent memos pertaining to the grant of dearness allowance.
Qua relief (III), matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 14232/2008, titled as Nek Ram & Ors. vs. State of H. P. & Ors., copy of which is taken on record, wherein following directions have been issued:-
Cumulatively, what emerges by harmonizing clarifications No.1 and 2 of letter dated 8.8.2006 is that the petitioners'' opinion was to be sought whether they would like to be paid their emoluments as per letter dated 9.5.2006 or they would like to be governed by the terms and conditions of their contract already executed. Since the petitioners have entered into agreement before 9.5.2006, their emoluments were to be protected and individually determined under the contract after permitting them to exercise their option. The individuals who have entered into agreement before 9.5.2006 constitute a special class and the endeavour has also been made in clarifications No.1 and 2 to ensure that their emoluments are not reduced. The Teachers belong to a noble profession. Their emoluments must commensurate with their status.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure A-2 dated 24.9.2005 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to exercise their option whether they would like to be regulated under letter dated 9.5.2008 or as per the terms and conditions of their contract which they have entered into in the year 2000. It is made clear on the basis of clarifications No.1 and 2 that the emoluments which the petitioners were getting be fore 9.5.2006, including merger of 50% dearness allowance with basic pay shall not be reduced. In case the 3 petitioners exercise their option to be governed under order 9.5.2006, the consequences would ensure and they will be paid their salary as per this letter dated 9.5.2006. No costs.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that said judgment has attained finality. Consequently, directions issued in Nek Ram (supra) shall mutatis mutandi apply to the instant case also if otherwise petitioner is found eligible.
Qua reliefs (I) & (II), petitioner submits that matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rakesh Chand vs. State of H.P. However, LPA No.11/2010, is pending against him.
Present petition is consequently disposed of with the direction that respondents may examine the eligibility and petitioner''s entitlement to the benefits of Nek Ram (supra) and the final outcome of the decision in LPA No.11/2010 or any subsequent proceedings, if any.