SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(All) 178

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.
Hema Pathak -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.and Others -Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3835 (SIS) of 2008
Decided On : 16-01-2013

Advocates:
Sri A,P. Ojha, Advocate, for Petitioner.
CSC, for Respondents.

The legal principle established is that compliance with the intimation requirement to the DIOS, as per Regulation 7(2-A), suffices for promotion, and the absence of prior approval does not invalidate the promotion.

Headnote:

promotion - pension entitlement - Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Section 16 - U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 - Regulation 7(2-A)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought pension and salary arrears after being promoted to the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade, which was not granted by the opposite parties. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Regulation 7(2-A) of the Board's regulations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's promotion, duly intimated to the DIOS as required by the regulation, entitled her to the salary and benefits of the Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade. The defense of the opposite parties was deemed untenable as no illegality or irregularity in the promotion was pointed out by the DIOS.

Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the petitioner to pension and salary benefits upon promotion to the Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade, as per the provisions of Regulation 7(2-A) of the Board's regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere intimation to the DIOS, as required by the regulation, sufficed for the promotion, and the absence of prior approval did not invalidate the promotion. The defense of the opposite parties was rejected due to the lack of illegality or irregularity in the promotion.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the opposite parties were directed to pay the petitioner the salary difference and all other benefits admissible to the Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade within three months.

Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.—

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:-

"(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to grant pension of the petitioner with effect from 1.7.2003 in the pay scale admissible to the post of Assistant Teacher of L.T. Grade, on which she was promoted by the Committee of Management of the College, in accordance with law;

(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to pay and disburse the arrears of salary for the period from 19.5.2003 to 30.6.2003 and the arrears of regular pension payable to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.2003 along with interest @ 18% per annum;

(iii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.5.2007 passed by the opposite party no.3, as contained in Annexure No.9 to the writ petition."

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioenr was appointed as Assistant Teacher (B.T.C. Grade) in Primary Section of Sahai Singh Balika Vidyalaya Inter College, Narahi, Lucknow.

4. The State Government in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Sec;ion 16 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 vide G.O. No. 259/15-7-2003-1(3)/2003 granted sanction to the amendment in regulation 7 (2) of the Regulations made by the Board for appointment of Principal and Teachers of the institutions. This amendment was notified by the Board vide notification No. Parishad-9/741 dated 26th February 2003 and published by the State Government in the official gazette dated 1st March, 2003. It provides that the Committee of Management of those Intermediate Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools in which primary classes are running and teachers of primary section are getting salary under the provisions of U.P. Hgih School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, shall fill the vacancies available in L.T. Grade in the College by promotion to the extent of 25% from amongst those teachers of primary section who are trained graduate and have completed 5 years' satisfactory services in that capacity and the Committee of Management shall intimate the Inspector of such promotion.

5. Thereafter on 18.5.2003 the Committee of Management of the College passed resolution granting promotion to the petitioenr along with three others on the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade under 25% quota reserved for promotion from teachers of Primary Section.

6. On 19.5.2003 the Manager of the College intimated the promotion of the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools as required by regulation 7(2) of the Regulations. The petitioenr attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2003 but neither he was paid difference of salary of L.T. Grade from the date of his promotion nor pension as admissible to L.T. Grade Teacher was sanctioned in his favour. Feeling aggrieved thereby the instant writ petition has been filed.

7. The grievance of the petitioenr is that under the Regulation 7(2-A) it is only intimation which is to be furnished by the Management to the DIOS and prior or subsequent approval of DIOS is not required for the purpose of promotion under the reserved quota for promotion of the teachers of the Primary Schools. Since her promotion was duly communicated to the DIOS, therefore, she was entitled for pay of the L.T. Grade teacher and also consequential benefits.

8. In the counter affidavit, it is submitted that promotion of the petitioner was not approved by the DIOS and the same could not be implemented and the petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2003, as such the petitioner was never promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade. It is further submitted that since the petitioenr was not promoted, therefore, under the rules she was not entitled for the pension








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top