Sita Sharan Tiwari vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

K.K. Trivedi, Judge

The only grievance of the petitioner appears to be that he was appointed with an understanding that in case of selection, he will be appointed on regular basis as back as on 10.10.1991 by the respondent No. 5 in the school on the post of Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner was thereafter regularized. The claim for grant-in-aid was made by the Society and while sanctioning the post for the purposes of making payment of grant, one post of Clerk was sanctioned vide order dated 27.07.1996. The demand for payment of grant indicating that the petitioner was working on regular basis in a pay scale, was made and the demand as a whole was accepted by the State Government and the amount of grant was disbursed to the respondent No. 5. It is contended that thereafter since an order was issued by the respondents on 30.08.1997 saying that as per the policy made by the State Government the Lower Division Clerks were to be appointed on part time basis and were to be paid only Rs. 400/- as salary, regular salary was not paid to the petitioner. This being so, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner along with others before this Court. The said W.P. No. 437/2000 was disposed of vide order dated 05.12.2006 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim and since such a claim has now been rejected by the impugned order, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that since the petitioner was appointed on regular basis, the claim of grant was made by the Society for the post on which the petitioner was appointed in the regular pay scale and since the said grant was already sanctioned, it was not open to the respondents to put such a rider for payment of regular salary to the petitioner. It is further claimed that respondent No. 5 was not required to withheld the regular salary of the petitioner only on the basis of such a direction of the respondents-State. In view of this submission, a relief is claimed to the effect that direction be issued to the respondents to make the payment of regular salary of the petitioner from the grant-in-aid received by the respondent No. 5. A return has been filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 and it is contended that the State Government had taken a decision pursuant to which a direction was issued to make appointment of Lower Division Clerks in the fixed salary on ad hoc basis. Such a direction could have been issued under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (herein after referred to as ''Act''). It is contended that as per the terms and conditions mentioned while sanctioning the grant, the petitioner was to be paid only Rs. 400/- as salary from the grant and rest of the amount, if any, was required to be paid by the Society. It was not proper on the part of the petitioner to claim grant-in-aid on the regular pay scale from the State Government. Thus, it is contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Admittedly the grant was claimed by respondent No. 5 only after sanction of the post as has been ordered by the State Government on 27.07.1996. In the order sanctioning one post, it was nowhere said that the post of Clerk was to be filled in on part time basis on a fixed salary. On the other hand, it was said that the staff as mentioned by the respondent No. 5 should be in consonance to grant sanctioned by the State Government and any person, who is appointed in violation of such a sanction, would not be paid the salary from the grant. However, while issuing the order of making payment of grant and prescribing the pay scale, on 30th August, 1997 only for the first time it was said that the post of Lower Division Clerk was to be filled in on part time basis on a fixed salary of Rs. 400/-. How could this be done when specifically same post was sanctioned and when grant as a whole claimed by the respondent No. 5 was sanctioned by the State Government. This being so, if the grant was to be paid, it was to be paid for the regular post of the Lower Division Clerk.

It appears that such a grant was paid by the State Government as it is stated that the claim of grant made by the Society was accepted by the State Government and the amount was disbursed. If the grant was given for the purposes of disbursement of the salary to a regular person like the petitioner, it could not have been curtailed to Rs. 400/- per month as is indicated in the order passed by the respondents. This being so, it is necessary on the part of the District Education Officer to examine whether actual grant was paid for the purpose of disbursement of salary to the Lower Division Clerk on regular basis or not. If such a grant was paid by the State Government, it was the duty on the part of the respondent No. 5 to pay the salary of the petitioner in the regular pay scale.

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 to get an enquiry conducted in respect of the grant sanctioned and disbursed to respondent No. 5 and if it is found that the grant as a whole claimed by the respondent No. 5 was paid by the State Government, to direct respondent No. 5 to pay the regular salary of the post of Lower Division Clerk to the petitioner from the said grant. All the arrears be calculated from the date of receipt of the grant and be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.