IMPORTANT POINT
The court mandated a fair examination of the petitioner's claims regarding pay fixation and pension benefits, emphasizing adherence to the applicable service rules.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. A. Gayan, learned CGC for all the respondents.

2. This case has a checkered history. The petitioner aggrieved with the order dated 08.10.1991 by which he was reverted back from Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) to Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) retrospective with effect from 12.06.1994 approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 209 of 1992. Be it stated herein that the petitioner was working as a PGT in the Sainik School, Goalpara. This Court vide order dated 07.04.1997 set aside the impugned order dated 08.10.1991 but however gave liberty to the respondents to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after granting opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

3. Thereafter, the respondent authority concerned passed the order dated 22.06.1998 by which the petitioner was granted the senior scale of Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f. 15.07.1993. The petitioner being aggrieved has again filed a writ petition before this Court, namely, Civil Rule No. 6137 of 1998 challenging the said order dated 22.06.1998. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.07.2009 by setting aside the said impugned order and by granting him all the consequential benefits in terms of the regulations of the school and as due to him in law. The respondents against the said judgment and order filed Writ Appeal No. 68 of 2011 which however was dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2011. After the dismissal of the writ appeal the petitioner submitted his representation before the respondent authority concerned on 05.12.2011 and pursuant thereto, the respondent authority fixed the pay of the petitioner and communicated to him vide letter dated 05.01.2012. Still being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed his third writ petition i.e. the present case before this Court.

4. According to the petitioner he was wrongly reverted back to TGT after being promoted to PGT, the post which he enjoyed along with the pay scale prescribed. The order reverting him back to TGT dated 08.10.1991 was interfered with by this Court and also affirmed by the subsequent decision of this Court both in the second writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. Despite the same, the pay-scale which was enjoyed by the petitioner at the time of his promotion to PGT has not been restored and that the scale of pay of 1640-2900 has been given to him only w.e.f. 15.07.1993. The claim of the petitioner otherwise is that the said pay scale should be given to him w.e.f. 01.07.1984 in terms of his promotion to the senior grade at the relevant time.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that his case is governed by 1971 Rules of the Sainik School and not the Rules of 1997 which came subsequently. Since he had already acquired the required length of service to be given to the higher pay scale before the Rules of 1997 came into force, the pay-scale which is due to him w.e.f. 01.07.1984 should be directed to be given to him and the consequential conversion of pay be done and the benefit given to him. Further as the petitioner has since retired from service, the pensionery benefit should also be accordingly recalculated so that he can enjoy the revised pensionery benefit.

6. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit but having regard to the complexity of the nature of the issue involved, this Court is of the considered view that the issue be best examined and considered by the respondent authorities notwithstanding the impugned letter dated 05.01.2012.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner shall file a precise and concise representation by giving all the sequence of events with supporting documents and submit the same before the respondent authorities within a period of 1 month from today. Upon receipt of the same by the respondent authorities, the grievance projected by the petitioner for appropriate fixation of his pay should be looked into and examined. The respondent authorities concerned shall also give an opportunity