2004 (3) AWC 2557
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
D. P. Singh, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 9704 of 1999
Decided on April 22, 2004
Shakil Ahmad Siddiqui
Versus
Joint Director of Education, Allahabad and others
Pleadings - Pay Fixation Dispute - Government Orders - Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India - U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 - L.T. Grade - C.T. Grade - B.T.C. Grade - Service Calculation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher at a recognized and aided college, was granted L.T. grade based on completing five years of satisfactory service in the C.T. grade and ten years overall service as a teacher. Subsequently, the pay fixation in the L.T. grade was cancelled without notice, leading to the petitioner's complaint and challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had indeed completed the required service for L.T. grade as per the relevant Government orders, and the cancellation without notice was unjustified. The court also held that Section 33D of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 did not apply to the case.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the calculation of service for L.T. grade eligibility, the validity of the pay fixation cancellation, and the applicability of Section 33D of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant Government orders to establish that the petitioner met the criteria for L.T. grade and that the cancellation without notice was unjust. The court also clarified that Section 33D did not apply to the case.
Final Decision: The petition succeeded, and the pay fixation cancellation was quashed. The petitioner was directed to continue in the L.T. grade from the specified date.
D. P. Singh, J.—Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed of under the Rules of the Court.
2. Heard counsel for the parties.
3. Majidia Islamia Inter College, Allahabad is a duly recognised and aided college and is also a minority institution under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in B.T.C. grade on 23.9.1974 in the Institution. Having completed five years of satisfactory service he was given C.T. grade with effect from 24.9.1979 vide approval order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 20.11.1980. The C.T. grade was declared a dying cadre in August, 1989 and several Government orders were issued thereafter granting L.T. grade to certain teachers. It is alleged that in pursuance thereof the petitioner was also granted L.T. grade with effect from 1.1.1986 by a pay fixation order dated 18.11.1989 as the petitioner had completed five years of satisfactory service in the C.T. grade and ten years of over all service as a teacher. It is alleged that this benefit was granted to the petitioner in view of Government order dated 19.10.1989 as amended by another Government order dated 2.12.1989. The petitioner has approached this Court complaining that without any notice or opportunity his pay fixation in the L. T. grade was cancelled by an undated order in February, 1999. This cancellation is under challenge.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the District Inspector of Schools, it is alleged that the service of the petitioner rendered in the B.T.C. grade could not be included for calculating ten years of service and since the petitioner had not completed ten years of satisfactory service in the C.T. grade therefore, he was not entitled to the L.T. grade which was granted to him by mistake and when the mistake was detected, it had to be rectified, for which, no notice to the petitioner was required under law. It has also been urged that the petitioner would be entitled to grant of L.T. grade in pursuance of Section 33D of the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 which was enforced with effect from 20.4.1998.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that his pay fixation in the L.T. grade was made in November, 1989 on the strength of Government order dated 19.10.1989 as amended by the Government order dated 2.12.1990 which provides that any trained graduate who had completed five years of satisfactory service in the C.T. grade and ten years over all service as a teacher, he was entitled to the grant of L.T. grade.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had rendered five years of satisfactory service in the C.T. grade and he had also rendered ten years of over all service as teacher, including in the B.T.C. grade.
7. For testing he argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be necessary to take note of the two Government orders dated 19.10.1989 and 2.12.1990. Relevant part of Government order dated 19.10.1989 reads as follows :
"SHASNADESH SANKHYA 3299/15-7-89-1 (136) SHIKSHA ANUBHAG-7 DINANK 11.8.1989 DWARA C.T. GRADE KO DYING CADRE GHOSHIT KAR DIYA GAYA HAI. IS PRAKAR ASHASKIYA SAHAYATA PRAPT UCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYON MAIN C.T. GRADE KA KOI PAD SRIJIT NAHIN KIYA JAYEGA AUR NA KISI ADHAYAPAK KI NIYUKTI KI JAYEGI SHASNADESH SANKHYA VE.AA.2-1239 10.8-B/89V VE. AA. ANUBHAG-2 DINANK JUNE, 1989 KE BINDU 9 KE ANUSAR MADYAKIT VIDYALAYON KE C.T. GRADE KE AISE ADHAYAPAK JO PRASHIKSHIT SNATAK SNATAKUPADHI KE SATH L.T., B.ED. HO TATHA UNKE DAWARA 10 VARSH KI SANTOSHJANAK SEVA PURI KI JA CHUKI HO UNHE L.T. GRADE DIYA JAYEGA TATHA UNKA WETAN NIRDHARAN UPROKT PRAKRIYA KE ANUSAR L.T. GRADE MAIN KIYA JAYEGA L.T. GRADE MAIN JANE WALE AISE C.T. GRADE KE SHIKSHAK, WETAN NIRDHARAN KI TITHI KO CHAHE SADHARAN WETANMAN MAIN KARYARAT RAHE HO YA SELECTION GRADE MAIN, UNKA WETAN NIRDHARAN L.T. GRADE KE SADHARAN WETANMAN MAIN KIYA JAYEGA."
8. The aforesaid Government order provides that those gradua
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.