Gujarat High Court
District vs Umiyashankar on 8 February, 2010
Author: D.H.Waghela
Bench: D.H.Waghela
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9950/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9950 of 2009
=========================================================
DISTRICT
EDUCATION OFFICER & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UMIYASHANKAR
BHULESHVAR JOSHI & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
MOXA THAKKER ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
MAMTA R VYAS for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR DIPEN A DESAI for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 08/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Even as petitioners No.1 and 2 have been transposed as respondents, petitioners, authorities concerned of the State Government, have invoked Articles 14, 16, 226 of the Constitution to challenge the judgment and order dated 11.5.2007 of Gujarat Higher Secondary Schools Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Application No.56 of 2003 whereby it is ordered that the applicant therein should be upgraded as a higher secondary teacher from December 1981, he should be placed in the pay-scale of Rs.550-900 notionally and thereafter from 01.01.1986 in the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900. It is further directed that the actual benefit shall be granted from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 20.03.2003. Even as the present petitioners, who were opponents before the Tribunal, chose not to lead any documentary evidence to substantiate their arguments or to controvert the arguments of the applicant, it was submitted before this Court by learned A.G.P. that there was genuine factual dispute about the respondent having had more than 50% workload since the year 1981. It is, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, recorded as a finding of fact in the impugned order that, from 1981 the respondent was given additional 5 periods of Logic in Std. XII, 3 periods of Sanskrit in Std. XII and 10 periods of Sanskrit in Std. XI. Therefore, total 18 periods were given to him in higher secondary classes which exceeded 50% of workload. Besides that, the respondent had acquired degree of M.A. In the year 1981. Though it was true that the respondent was appointed as a higher secondary teacher by direct recruitment on 27.11.1986, he was entitled to first higher pay scale in 1983 and upgradation in the year 1990. The Tribunal has, in the impugned order, applied Government Resolution dated 21.6.1989 to the facts of the case and it is not shown as to how and why that Resolution was not applicable in the facts of this case.
2. In the above facts, the petition is found to have no merits and hence it is dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake) Top