Employees have the right to claim the correct salary computed in accordance with rules and previous court orders, and institutions are obligated to pay salaries as per court orders.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:

“(i) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 that means, the institution to pay the petitioner the salary which is payable to the post of “Upper Division Teacher’ from December, 2009 to till his retirement.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the petitioner was appointed to the post of ‘Upper Division Teacher’ on 23.11.1981 in the institution, known as Dau R.P. National Higher Secondary School, Durg, respondent no. 2 herein. The said institution is receiving the grant-in-aid from the Ayog for payment of salary to its teachers and governed by the provisions known as Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1998 and that for recruitment to the aided educational institutions statutory recruitment rules have been framed under the Act, which is known as Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ki Bharti) Niyam, 1979.

3. The petitioner who was appointed as Upper Division Teacher has been confirmed subsequently on the basis of resolution, dated 13.01.1985 passed by the institution in this regard. At the time of audit of the institution in year 1986, an audit objection was raised that the petitioner is not entitled to the salary of the post of Upper Division Teacher’ as he does not possess the minimum prescribed educational qualifications for the said post and, in consequence, recommended that he be paid the salary of the post of Lower Division Teacher’ and, ultimately his post as well as emoluments have been reduced from the post of Upper Division Teacher’ to the post of ‘Lower Division Teacher’.

4. Since, the said decision was taken without the default of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition by questioning the same before the erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of M.P. where the petition was registered as M.P. No. 1847/1986, titled as Anang Kumar Agrawal vs. Director of Public Instruction and Others. Upon hearing the parties, the aforesaid petition was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. by its order dated 15.03.1993 (Annexure P/1) by holding, inter-alia, that the petitioner does not possess the minimum prescribed educational qualifications and the selection committee was not duly constituted as per the provisions required under the said recruitment rules and, therefore, held that the State Government is neither legally bound to recognize the petitioner as ‘Upper Division Teacher’ nor is liable to release grant for payment of the said post. It, however, held further, that since the petitioner was not only appointed by the institution as a ‘Upper Division Teacher’ but has been confirmed as such also, therefore, while allowing the petition in part, has issued further directions at Para 12 in following terms:

“12. Consequently, the petition partly succeeds. It is directed that the respondent no. 1 and 2 shall continue to release grant-in-aid for payment of salary to the petitioner for the post of Lower Division Teacher. The respondent no. 3, however, is directed to recognize the petitioner as Upper Division Teacher on the post of on which he was confirmed and pay hi salary of that post and meet the additional expenditure for the purpose over and above the grant received from the Ayog.”

5. In view of the above directions, the respondent no. 2 i.e. the institution is legally bound to pay the difference of salary to the petitioner of the post of “Upper Division Teacher.” The institution had assured him also to pay the current salary which is payable to the “Upper Division Teacher.”