The court affirmed that teachers should receive pay scales based on qualifications acquired during service, rejecting restrictive interpretations of government resolutions.

ORDER :

(Biren Vaishnav, J.)

Oral Order In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 120 of 2024

1. Heard Mr.Sanjay Udhwani learned AGP for the appellant – State and Mr.R.V.Deshmukh learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1.

2. Challenge in this appeal at the hands of the State is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2022, by which, the prayer set out in the petition was granted.

3. For the sake of brevity, we do not reiterate the facts of the petitioner’s career as they have been set out by the learned Single Judge in the order which read as under:

“4 Brief facts giving rise to the present petition can be briefly summarized as under.

4.1 The petitioner is having qualification of B.Com., B.Ed. and was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section of Government aided minority educational institution called Janta Vidhyalaya on 1.7.1984. At the relevant point of time, the pay scale of teachers of secondary as well as higher secondary schools was the same in the pay scale of Rs.440-750. Thereafter vide Government Resolution dated 18.1.1989 separate scales were prescribed for teachers of higher secondary schools and higher secondary schools. As per the said Government Resolution, the teachers of secondary schools were entitled for pay scale of Rs.440-750 whereas for higher secondary school teachers it was Rs.550-900. As per the aforesaid Government Resolution, the benefits were to be granted notionally from 1.7.1979 upto 31.12.1985 and from 1.1.1986 onwards the salaries were required to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. The aforesaid pay scale of Rs.550-900, which was revised by Rs.1640-2900 vide Government Resolution dated 18.1.1989, was made applicable only to the higher school teachers.

4.2 Since the petitioner was not given the benefit of Government Resolution dated 18.1.1989 by placing him under higher pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, he preferred an Application No.109 of 1991 before the Gujarat Higher Secondary Schools Service Tribunal and vide judgment and order dated 4.8.1998 the Tribunal allowed the application preferred by the petitioner and directed the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner as per the Government Resolution dated 18.1.1989. Accordingly, the petitioner's salary was fixed at a pay scale was fixed at a basic pay of Rs.1700. However, verification of the same was not done by Local Fund Office. In the meantime, some similarly situated teachers directly approached this Court for the same relief by filing Special Civil Application No.3804 of 2002 and allied matters and the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed those petition vide judgment and order dated 30.8.2002 holding that those teachers were entitled to pay scale of Rs.550-900 from their date of appointment and they were required to be given corresponding revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from 1.1.1986. The aforesaid judgment dated 30.8.2002 was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.839 of 2003 and allied matters. However, the aforesaid appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat was dismissed vide order dated 2.7.2004. Even thereafter the State of Gujarat preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. [Civil] Nos.10606-10611 of 2005 and all those appeals were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7.1.2008.

4.3 In the meantime, the petitioner was declared surplus and was subsequently absorbed as surplus teacher in Sanskar High School, Kapdi Vad, Raipur vide order dated 11.1.2000 passed by the District Education Officer. Even thereafter also, the petitioner was declared surplus from Sanskar High School and was subsequently absorbed in Shri M.H.Vidhyamandir at Dabhoda, District Gandhinagar vide order dated 12.7.2004 passed by the District Education Officer. The petitioner served in the said school till attaining his superannuation on 31.5.2015.

4.4 It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite rendering 31 years of service, he has not been