Pravind Kumar & Others vs State of Uttarakhand & Others

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners who are Assistant Teachers, Junior High School and Head Master of Primary School had raised their grievance for the following

reliefs:

“(i) To issue a writ or writs, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3,

Director of Education (Basic), Uttarakhand, Nanoorkhera, Dehradun in relation to the recovery of the excess payment and fresh fixation of the salary

to a lower pay scale (after a period of about 9 years).

(ii) To issue a writ or writs, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to continue the service

of the petitioner on the salary which they were drawing on the basis of the 7th Pay Commission from the year 2007, i.e. pay scale of Rs. 9,300/- to

Rs. 34,800/-.

(iii) To pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award the cost of the petition.â€​

Brief facts are that the petitioners in this Writ Petition claim that they are the Assistant Teachers, Primary School having been appointed in the year

2006-07 in the District Champawat and Almora. Their case is that after completion of requisite period of service in the year 2007-09, they were either

promoted as Head Master, Primary School or as an Assistant Teacher, Junior High School, whereby, they were place in the pay scale of Rs. 5,500/-

to Rs. 9,000/-.

The case of the petitioner is that the scale payable to the Teachers, of petitioners’ cadre, was revised by the Government Order No.

74/XXVII(7)/2009 dated 01.03.2009, the petitioners were entitled for the revised pay scale of Rs. 9,300/-to Rs. 34,800/- with the grade pay of Rs.

4,600/- as revised. It is the case of the petitioner that by a subsequent Government Order No. 693/xxvii(7)/2010 dated 21.10.2010, the respondents at

their own wisdom and by their own decision making process without their being any influence or any misrepresentation, exercised by the petitioners,

had re-fixed the minimum pay scale which was payable to the petitioner to an amount of Rs. 17,140/- including the grade pay, the petitioners were

entitled to get as a consequence of upgradation of their scale, the said upgraded minimum scale being paid to the petitioners w.e.f. October, 2009. It is

the case of the petitioners that in the exparte proceedings of 20.10.2011, the Committee decided that those teachers appointed or promoted after

01.01.2006, will not be entitled for the benefit of the Government Order dated 21.10.2010 and consequently benefit of fixation of scale to Rs. 17,140/-.

Rather in the meeting it was held that said scale of Rs. 17,140/-would be payable to those who are appointed after 17.10.2008.

It happened so that the then Director of Education on 20.10.2011 is said to have held a meeting to decide the anomaly, which is alleged to have

chanced in the pay fixation of the scale payable to the petitioners as a consequence of enforcement of the Government Order dated 21.10.2010. For

taking a decision as to whether there has occurred any anomaly in the payment of the scale, the Financial Controller, School Education had issued a

direction on 08.11.2011 so as to bring about the necessary changes and for the recovery of the excess of payment of scale given to them. This was

based on decision of Committee dated 20.10.2011, which was organized after two years from the date when payment of revised scale was

commenced.

It is the case of the petitioners that in pursuance to the said aforesaid directions contained in Committee’s decision and letter of Finance

Controller dated 08.1.2011, Committee was constituted and Committee has taken a decision on 09.01.2018 and enforced recommendations of

Committee. The recommendation of the Committee is annexed as Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. The concluding part of the order, based on the

Committee’s report dated 09.01.2018, impugned in the Writ Petition reads as under:

“vr% mijksDr “kkluknsâ€k esa nh xbZ O;oLFkkvksa ds vuqlkj p;u@izksUur osrueku ,oa inksUufr izkIr fâ€k{kdksa dks U;wure osru 17140@&

ns; ugha gSAmDrkuqlkj mDr ;kfpdkvksa esa ek0 U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkuk mfpr gSAmRrjk[k.M iznsâ€k esa

jk0izk0fo0@jk0m0izk0fo0 esa fnukad 01-01-2006 dk ykHk ysus okys fâ€k{kdksa ds laca/k esa lfefr }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd bu fâ€k{kdksa dk iqu% lgh

osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk; ,oa vf/kd Hkqxrku dh olwyh lkrosa osrueku ds vuqlkj izkIr gksus okys ,fj;j esa ls lek;ksftr fd;k tk;sxkA rn~uqlkj lacaf/kr

vuqHkkx }kjk tuinksa dks i`Fkd ls funsZâ€​k fd, tkus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSAâ€​

As a consequence of the recommendations of the Committee dated 09.01.2018, the Director, Primary School Education has passed the impugned

order dated 09.02.2018, which is under challenge by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. While making reference to the recommendations of the

Committee dated 09.01.2018 the Director has passed the following order:

“vr% mijksDr ds Øe esa jk-izk-fo-@jk-m-izk-fo- esa dk;Zjr fâ€​k{kdksa dks 01-01-2006 ds mijkUr p;u@izksUur@inksUufr izkIr gksus ds QyLo:Ik

xzsM osru 4600@& vuqeU; gksus ij fQVes.V rkfydk ds vuqlkj :0 17140@& dk ykHk vuqeU; fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa xfBr lfefr dh laLrqfr ds vuqlkj

vxszÙkj dk;Zokgh djus dk d’V djsaA rn~uqlkj funsâ€​kky; dks Hkh voxr djkus dk d’V djsaAâ€​

As a matter of fact if we see the concluding part of the order challenged by the petitioners, it only contemplates a direction to the Competent

Authority to take the decision and further action based on the recommendations of the Committee dated 09.01.2018 and the order dated 09.02.2018.

On a simple reading of this order, as a matter of fact, it does not show that any positive action has been taken so as to grant a cause of action to the

petitioners to file a Writ Petition, because as matter of fact no action has yet been taken against him. It is only a direction given by the Director to the

District Education Officer for taking an action. Its an interdepartmental correspondence for an action, this letter has not even been addressed to the

petitioners. Hence, proposed action is yet take place.

In view of the aforesaid fact, prima facie this Court is of the view that at present there is no cause of action which has accrued to the petitioners,

hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed at this stage without prejudicing the rights of the petitioners that in an event if any subsequent order is passed and

action is taken in pursuance of the order dated 09.02.2018 it will always be open to the petitioners to approach this Court invoking the Writ jurisdictions

with liberty reserved to seek the relief which is being sought to be pressed in the present Writ Petition.

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition would stand dismissed.

However, there would be no order as to cost.