Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Prasad Agarwal Son Of Lala Ram ... vs The Regional Deputy Director Of ... on 9 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(4)AWC3924
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade in D.A.V. Inter College, Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar in the month of October, 1950. We was promoted as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in the said college in July, 1955. Thereafter he was promoted as Lecturer vide order dated 8th July, 1960. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 28.11.1960 but he was not being paid the salary of the Lecturer Grade.
3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the representations were made by the petitioner to the District Inspector Schools for payment of difference of salary of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade and Lecturer Grade as he had been discharging the duty of post of Lecturer w.e.f. 8.7.1960. Ultimately, the petitioner was communicated vide letter dated 16.7.1988 by the Committee of Management that in view of the order dated 5.7.1988. passed by the District Inspect of Schools, Muzaffarnagar his representation has been rejected and salary of the post of Lecturer can not be given to him for the reason that the petitioner is not qualified for the post of Lecturer.
4. It is vehemntly contended by the counsel for the petitioner that no such letter dated 5.7.1988 was ever communicated to the petitioner nor the petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing to how that in fact he is qualified for the post of Lecturer and that his appointment on the said post has rightly been made, as such the order dated 5.7.1988 is liable to be set aside. The High Court vide order dated 20.3.2007 directed the Standing counse to bring on record the copy of the letter dated 5.7.1988 said to haven been passed by the District Inspector of Schools.
5. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior counsel appearing for the Committee of Management submits that if the petitioner was not being paid salary of the post of Lecturer since 1960 as such he should have filed the writ petition at that time whereas he has filed the writ petition in 1989 when he was about to retire. According to him the petition suffers from delay.
6. In so far as objection of limitation is concerned, suffice it to say that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has extraordinary power to entertain the petition where the action seems to be arbitrary or is against the priciples of natural justice, hene this Court is not going into the question of limitation in this case and is deciding the case on merit.
7. On query being made to the Standing counsel the Court has been informed that the District Inspector of Schools as well as the Deputy Director of Education were informed by fax dated 23.3.200 for immediate compliance of the order dated 20.3.2007 passed by this Court but the compliance has not been made so far.
8. The only question remains to be seen whether the petitioner is entitled for payment of difference of salary for the post of Lecturer or not.
9. From the admitted facts it is apparently clear that the District Inspector of Schools had approved the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 8.7.1960 for the post of Lecturer Grade. If the petitioner was not qualified the DIOS ought not to have approved his promotion on the said post at that time.
10. Admittedly also, the petitioner has not been given any notice or Opportunity before the order dated 5.7.1988 was passed. This order has also not been brought on record even after opportunity was given to the Standing counsel by order dated 20.3.2007. The fact is that the petitioner has worked on the post of Lecturer since 1960 and has retired from the said post. According to the counsel for the petitioner it does not exist. Since the petitioner has worked on the post of Lecturer after approval of his appointment by the District Inspector of Schools, he is entitled to the salary of the said post. I he petitioner was promoted on the post of Lecturer in 1960 and has worked almost about 30 years till the date of retirement.
11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The District Inspector of Schools, Mupzaffarnagar is directed to pay difference of salary of the petitioner of the post of Lecturer with 9% interest and consequential benefits w.e.f. 8.7.1960 till the date of actual payment within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.