The petitioner is working as Headmistress of an aided Lower Primary School from 01-05-1993. Audit objections had come to be recorded about the fixation of her salary which she was drawing in the Headmaster’s pay and notwithstanding her representations respondents were not inclined to let off the objections. The Original Petition has come to be filed for a declaration that the benefits which had been initially sanctioned to her was liable to be retained without interference from the respondents and in any event the proposal for recovery of the excess pay, if any, drawn by her was illegal and not sustainable.

2. The petitioner has continuous service from 11-07-1967 as P.D. Teacher. After 13 years of service, she had been granted senior grade with effect from 11-07-1987. She had been granted selection grade on 11-07-1993. The dispute had arisen in the matter of appropriate reckoning of the pay in view of the circumstance that she had been promoted as Headmistress on 01-05-1993. The General Pay Revision from 01-03-1992 also had become a contributing factor. The proximity of these dates, namely that of conferment of Selection Grade, the date of pay revision and the promotion as Headmistress had apparently not been correctly comprehended which has resulted in the present situation.

3. As on 11-07-1992, the petitioner’s pay was fixed at Rs.1,990/-, which alone might be relevant for the time being. It was in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1250 – 2230. Pay was later on refixed at Rs.2150/- in the scale of Headmaster being Rs.1330 – 2555. This was sanctioned effective from 01-05-1993. The scales stood revised to Rs.1640 – 2900 with effect from 01-05-1993, the date of option, and the pay was fixed at Rs.2360/-. This was purportedly following G.O.(P) 600/93/Fin. dated 25-09-1993.

4. On verification, the Assistant Educational Officer had found that this might not have been admissible. It was for the reason that the petitioner had been granted the selection grade on 11-07-1992 and since the promotion was within one year thereof it should not have been possible for the petitioner to get a fixation, as this development was impermissible to be taken notice of.

5. It had been contended by the respondents that teachers were entitled to opt the time bound higher grade on or after 01-03-1992. Acquisition of higher grade as admissible to teachers or promotion as Headmaster were in fact, equivalent to regular promotion. Therefore, after the pay revision of 01-03-1992 the petitioner’s pay could have been fixed as on 11-07-1992 only, namely the date of selection grade or the date of option. Therefore, attempt of the petitioner to get her pay fixed in the Headmaster’s scale as well, which came soon thereafter, and as on 01-05-1993 was inadmissible.

6. The contention highlighted by the petitioner was that the fixation as had been done was perfectly in consonance with the relevant Government orders. Reference is made to G.O. (P) 81/94(5)/fin. dated 02-02-1994. Thereby the employees including teachers had been permitted to opt fixation of pay in the next immediate promotion post assumed on or after 01-03-1992. Her promotion was only on 01-05-1993 and the grant of selection grade could not have been equated to a promotion. It was only a time bound grade promotion and was not reckonable in view of the Government Order dated 02-02-1994.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Government. It is shown that the reliance placed on G.O. (P) 81/94(5)/Fin. dated 02-02-1994 so as to seek an advantage was impermissible. It is contended that even though the said order provides that only next immediate promotion post assumed after 01-03-1992 could have been opted, if there was more than one promotion post, the earlier promotion alone was reckonable. This position, according to the Government, had been further clarified by G.O.(P) 380/94 (13)/Fin. dated 09-06-1994. The petitioner has made available this order as Ext. P11. Reference is made to G.O. (P). 81/94(5)/