The court upheld the validity of limiting pay scale benefits to current employees as a justified administrative action, emphasizing financial constraints in determining eligibility for revised pay scales.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The facts of the case have already been set forth in detail in the order dated 04.07.2025. The relevant extract of the order dated 04.07.2025 is reproduced below:-

"1. Heard.

2. The petitioners, all retired Teachers of Basic Shiksha Parishad having retired prior to 01.07.2001, are aggrieved by the Government Order dated 29.06.2004, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, whereby their claim for grant of revised pay scales, so far as pay parity has been granted at par with the Central Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.07.2001, has been rejected. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the portion of the Government Order dated 03.09.2001, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, where in paragraph 2(1) it has been provided that the benefit of the earlier Government Order shall only be extended to those primary teachers and headmasters who are in service on 01.07.2001. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the pay scales as given to the Central Government teachers to the petitioners also w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that all the petitioners were primary teachers having retired prior to 01.07.2001. A government order dated 20.07.2001, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, was issued in pursuance to the Fifth Pay Commission whereby the pay scales of the Fifth Pay Commission were granted to all the primary and secondary school teachers w.e.f. 01.01.1996. At the same time, considering the parity as had been claimed by the said teachers with the Central Government teachers, a revised pay scale was granted w.e.f. 01.07.2001 to the said teachers which, as already indicated above, was at par with the Central Government teachers. The Government Order dated 20.07.2001 provided in Clause 3 that a separate order would be issued for the purposes of admissibility of the pay scales, pay fixation and payment of arrears.

4. Considering clause 3 of the Government Order dated 20.07.2001 another Government Order dated 08.08.2001, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, was issued which, according to the petitioners, extended the benefit of pay scale which had been provided w.e.f. 01.07.2001 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 itself.

5. However, even before the petitioners could be granted the benefit of the said government order dated 08.08.2001 the government order impugned dated 03.09.2001, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, was issued which provided that the benefit of the revised pay scale, as provided vide government order dated 20.07.2001 i.e. at par with the Central Government teachers to the primary and secondary teachers, would only be admissible to those teachers who are in service on 01.07.2001.

6. The grievance of the petitioners is that once the government order dated 20.07.2001 had in fact granted parity to the teachers of the primary and secondary with the Central Government teachers yet the same was provided w.e.f. 01.07.2001 but subsequent thereto vide government order dated 08.08.2001 the benefit of the said pay scales was extended w.e.f. 01.01.1996 consequently there cannot be any occasion for issuance of the government order dated 03.09.2001 whereby restricting the said pay scales to only those teachers who were in service on 01.07.2001 more particularl