Allahabad High Court
Ansan Lal Jha Son Of Sri Munsi Lal, ... vs District Inspector Of Schools And ... on 13 February, 2006
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.S. Singh, learned Standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 9th January, 1999 and 14th June, 2000 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Budaun. It is also prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in the revised pay scale in L.T. Grade with effect from 1.1.1.996 and to pay the arrears of salary and other emoluments since 1.1.1996.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposing of the writ petition are the petitioner was appointed in JTC Grade in Hari Babu Janta Inter College, Gawan, District Budaun with effect from 18th September, 1973. The institution is a recognised institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and is also receiving grant-in and under the U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary to teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. The petitioner was promoted in C.T. Grade with effect from 18.9.1978. The qualification of the petitioner is M.A., B.T.C., with effect from 1.1.1986 the petitioner was given L.T. Grade In accordance with the Government order dated 3rd June, 1989 which grant was also approved by District inspector of Schools vide order dated 29th December, 1989. The petitioner was also given the selection grade of L.T. Grade with effect from 1.1.1996 which was also approved by District Inspector of Schools on 26th June, 1998. By a subsequent order dated 9th January, 1999 the fixation of the petitioner's pay from 1.1.1996 was modified With the order that L.T. Grade pay scale be given after completion of 10 years service in C.T. Grade. The petitioner submitted a representation to the District inspector of Schools challenging the pay fixation and also filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 53737 of 1999 which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 9th February, 2000 directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation of the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 14th June, 2000 has rejected the representation of the petitioner holding that petitioner was entitled for L.T. Grade after completion of 10 years service in C.T. Grade. Reliance has been placed in the impugned order on the amendments made in Regulation 6(1) on 10.9.1997 as well as on Section 33-D as inserted in U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) (Amendment) Act, 1998. The order passed by District Inspector of Schools rejecting the representation of the petitioner has been challenged in this writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that the petitioner according to the Government order dated 4th October, 1989 was entitled for grant of LT, Grade after 10 years of satisfactory service in C.T. Grade. It was also stated that petitioner having been appointed in C.T. Grade on 18.9.197S, he was entitled to L.T. Grade with effect from 18.9.1938. The order passed by District Inspector of Schools that petitioner was entitled for LT, Grade after completion of 10 years service in C.T. Grade has been justified. Reliance has also been placed on Government Orders dated 9.1.1992 and 30th February, 1999.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned order, submitted that petitioner was entitled for grant of L.T. Grade after completion of 10 years of satisfactory service. Reliance has been placed on the order of Director of Education dated 2nd December, 1989 copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which clarification was issued to the order dated 19th October, 1989 issued by Director of Education for fixation of salary in L.T. Grade to the effect that for grant of L.T. Grade 10 years satisfactory service is required out of which five years service should be in C.T. Grade. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of this Court in 1995(3) E.S.C. 92 (All) 92; Aruna Ghosh (Smt.) v. State of U.P. and Ors.
5. Sri I.S. Singh; learned standing Counsel, refuting the submissions of Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner was entitled to be treated in L.T. Grade only after completion of 10 years service in C.T. Grade. Much reliance has been placed on Section 33-D of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982.
6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
7. Before proceeding to consider the controversy raised in the present writ petition, it is necessary to note the concept of L.T. Grade" as used in U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 as well as U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982. According to Chapter - III Regulation 46 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 employees shall be allowed the scale of pay sanctioned by the State Government from time to time. The order issued by the State Government fixing various pay scales also refers to different grades and the concept of appointment in different grades as In the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as in U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act,. 1982 use the words "appointment of teachers in different grades". The word "Grade" has been used both in orders fixing pay scale as welt as as a concept of cadre. The Apex Court in (1975) 1 S.C.C. 319; A.K. Subraman and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., held that word "grade" has various shades of meaning In the service jurisprudence. Following was laid down by the Apex Court:
Now the question which arises for consideration is what is the meaning of the words "vacancies in the grade of Executive Engineer" as used in the aforesaid paragraph of Rule 4(2). When does a vacancy in the grade of Executive Engineer arise? To answer this question it is necessary to ascertain what are the posts which the grade of Executive Engineer consists of, for the vacancies can only be in the posts in the grade of Executive Engineer. The word "grade" has various shades of meaning in the service jurisprudence. It is sometimes used to denote a pay scale and sometimes a cadre. Here it is obviously used in the sense of cadre. A cadre may consist only of permanent posts or sometimes, as is quite common these days, also of temporary posts.
8. While considering the controversy as to whether a L.T. Grade teacher having been sanctioned pay scale of lecturer in accordance with the Government order dated 28th February, 1990 whether such teacher shall be held to be holding the post of lecturer also, a Division Bench of this Court in 1993 (2) E.S.C. 456 (All); Vipin Kumar v. District Inspector of Schools and Ors. held that mere grant of pay scale in a particular grade is not equivalent to holding of substantive cadre in a particular grade. Following was held in paragraph 9 of the said judgment:-
9. The word "grade" used in Para 4(2) of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, Rule 9 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 and Regulation 6 of Chapter II of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 must be taken as "post" of lecturer. A teacher, who is working in L.T. Grade, is to be promoted to the post of lecturer's grade in the sense that he is to be promoted to the post of lecturer in an institution. A teacher may be given lecturer's pay scale but he may not be given the post. Unless he is given a post the mere fact that he has been given lecturer's pay scale will not be taken as to have given him the post of lecturer unless he is duly promoted to the said post in " accordance with the provisions of a statute.
9. In the present case the dispute is with regard to grant of pay scale of L.T. Grade to the petitioner since the dispute pertains to fixation of salary of the petitioner. The question is as to whether petitioner was entitled for grant of L.T. Grade only after having rendered 10 years service in C.T. Grade or whether he was entitled for grant of L.T. Grade after rendering 10 years satisfactory service out of which five years service be in the C.T. Grade. The petitioner having been appointed in C.T. Grade on 18.9.1978 he could have "completed 10 years in C.T. Grade only on 18.91988 but before 1.1.1986 he has completed five years service in C.T. Grade and more than,10 years satisfactory service - as teacher. The controversy raised in this writ petition has already been answered by this Court in 1995 A.W.C. 893; Smt. Shakuntala Tripathi v. Deputy Director of Education and Ors.; 1995(3) E.S.C. 92 (All); Aruna Ghosh (Smt) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. In the aforesaid judgment of Smt. Shakuntala Tripathi this Court after considering the relevant Government order held that for grant of L.T. Grade teacher is required to have five years service irv C.T. Grade and 10 years overall satisfactory service. Following was laid down in paragraph 4 of the said judgment:-
4 ...But the impugned order in so far as it holds that the petitioner would be entitled to L.T. Grade with effect from 1.7.90 i.e., after completion of 10 years' continuous satisfactory service in C.T. grade, is, to my mind, founded on misreading and is contrary to the intendment of the G.O. aforesaid. What is required in order to qualify for L.T. grade in accordance with the G.O. afore-stated is to have five years' service in C.T. Grade and 10 years overall satisfactory service. The words ' satisfactory service (Santosh Janak Seva) occurring in G.O. aforesaid. In my opinion, include the service rendered by the petitioner in J.T.C. grade as well. 10 years' satisfactory service within the meaning of the G.O. aforesaid cannot be circumscribed to service rendered in C.T. Grade alone. That is how I have construed the G.O. aforesaid, which amended an earlier G.O. dated 19.10.1989, in writ petition No. 16360 of 1991 Smt. Aruna Ghosh v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 8.2.1995. I am of the view that on a proper construction of the G.O. aforesaid, the petitioner would be entitled to get L.T. grade on completion of 5 years' service in C.T. grade and 10 years overall satisfactory service after the institution was upgraded to the level of High School. The impugned order, therefore, deserve to be modified to that extent.
10. The judgment of this Court in Aruna Ghosh's case (supra), as relied by Counsel for the petitioner, fully supports the contention raised by Counsel for the petitioner.
11. In view of the law laid down by this Court in above cases, the petitioner was clearly entitled for grant of L.T. Grade from 1.1.1986 which was, in fact, granted to the petitioner and his salary was fixed from 1.1.1986 in L.T. Grade. The petitioner was also granted selection grade after 10 years i.e., from. 1.1.1996 and it was only thereafter his fixation of salary was changed holding that he was entitled for grant of L.T. Grade after completion of 10 years service in C.T. Grade. In above view of the matter, the view of the District Inspector of Schools that for grant of L.T. Grade pay scale 10 years service in C.T. Grade is must and petitioner having not completed 10 years on 1.1.1986 is not entitled for L.T. Grade is not in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in above cases.
12. Now the submission raised by learned standing Counsel on Section 33-D also needs consideration. Section 33-D of U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 is extracted below: -
33- D. Special provision for Certificate of. Teaching grade teachers-
Every teacher in the Certificate of Teaching grade, who is a trained graduate and,-
(a) has completed ten years continuous satisfactory service in the said grade on or before January 1, 1986 shall, with effect from January 1, 1986; or
(b) completes the said service of ten years after January 1, 1986 shall, with effect from the date of completion of the said service of ten years;
be deemed to have been appointed in the Trained Graduate Grade]
13. Section 33-D provides that every teacher in certificate of teaching grade who has completed 10 years continuous satisfactory service in the said grade on or before 1st January, 1986 shall be deemed to have been appointed in the trained graduate grade. According to Section 33- D It is true that a teacher has to be treated to be appointed in trained graduate grade only after completion of 10 years service in C.T. Grade but the word "grade" used in Section 33- D means "cadre" which date is relevant In determination of seniority, substantive appointment etc. There cannot be any dispute to the provisions of Section 33- D and the submission of learned standing Counsel is right that a person will be treated to be appointed in L.T. Grade only after completion of 10 years service in C.T. Grade but in the present case we are not concerned with the appointment in L.T. Grade nor petitioner Is claiming to be treated in L.T. Grade from 1.1.1986 for the purposes of substantive appointment or cadre. The question in the present case is only with regard to payment of salary in L.T. Grade as pay scale. As observed above a teacher may be entitled for grant of pay scale of a particular grade without he being appointed against the post of L.T. Grade or without he holding the post of L.T. Grade on substantive basis. The grant of pay scale can be sanctioned to a teacher without he holding the post on substantive basis. Section 33-D is not attracted in the facts of the present case. The present case only relates to grant of L.T. Grade pay scale from 1.1.1986 which is clearly covered by the judgment of this Court in Smt. Shakuntala Tripathi and Aruna Ghosh's case (supra).
14. In view of the foregoing discussions, the orders passed by District Inspector of Schools dated 9th January, 1999 and 14th June, 2000 cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to extend all benefits to the petitioner treating him to be in L.T. Grade pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 and also selection grade in L.T. Grade pay scale from 1.1.1996 as was already sanctioned by orders of District Inspector of Schools dated 26,6.1998. The petitioner shall be given the consequential benefits, if not already paid.
15. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions.