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

2022 Supreme(UK) 315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Govind Prasad Gwasikoti & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1094 of 2022 with Writ petition (S/S) No. 1211 of 2022
Decided On : 26-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel.

The court emphasized that the denial of promotion pay scale to the petitioners based on their past services was unsustainable and directed the Competent Authority to consider their claim in the light of applicable government policy within a specific time frame.

Headnote:

Promotion Pay Scale - Denial of Benefit to Teachers of Basic Education Board - Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, Rule 5(2) of Uttarakhand Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2006, Government Order dated 12.07.2002 - The court discussed the denial of promotion pay scale to teachers of Basic Education Board and referenced the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, Rule 5(2) of Uttarakhand Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2006, and Government Order dated 12.07.2002. The court highlighted the unsustainable reason for denial of promotion pay scale and directed the Competent Authority to consider the claim of petitioners for promotion pay scale in the light of applicable government policy within a specific time frame.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were appointed as Assistant Teachers in schools run by Basic Education Board, sought the quashing of a letter denying them the benefit of promotional pay scale. They argued that their past services should be considered for eligibility for the promotion pay scale, as per the Government Order dated 12.07.2002.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the denial of promotion pay scale to be unsustainable and directed the Competent Authority to consider the claim of petitioners for promotion pay scale in the light of applicable government policy within a specific time frame.

Issues: The main issue was the denial of promotion pay scale to the petitioners based on their past services rendered in schools run by Basic Education Board.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of promotion pay scale to the petitioners was unsustainable and directed the Competent Authority to consider their claim in the light of applicable government policy within a specific time frame.

Final Decision: Both writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Regional Additional Director (Secondary Education), Nainital to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion pay scale in the light of applicable government policy and pass a speaking order within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1094 of 2022 alone are being considered.

3. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

    “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for record and to quash the letter dated 12.11.2020 issued by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 11).

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing, the respondents to grant the benefit of promotional pay scale (Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-) to the petitioners with effect from the date, when petitioner become eligible for the Promotional pay scale, details of date are given in Paragraph 9 of the writ petition, along with exemplary interest and its arrears.

4. Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic or Primary Schools run by Basic Education Board between the year 1987-1995 and they were employees of Basic Education Board, established under U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Subsequently, they were promoted to the next higher post of Head Master, Junior Basic School/Assistant Teacher, Senior Basic School, on different dates. Petitioners retained their status as teachers of Basic Education Board till enforcement of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 and they became State employee, by virtue of provision contained in Section 58 of the aforesaid Act, which reads as under:-

    “58. The services of teachers and employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad to be under the control of State Government - All the teachers, officers and employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad, including any supervising or inspecting officer or employee working immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act, shall be transferred to the State Government and they shall become teachers, officers and employees of the State Government and their services shall be governed by the service rules prescribed by the State Government.”

5. Petitioners are aggrieved by denial of benefit of promotion pay scale to them. According to them, their past services rendered in schools run by Basic Education Board should be taken into account while considering their eligibility for promotion pay scale, which is granted to teachers of Secondary Schools, in terms of Government Order dated 12.07.2002. The said Government Order provides that teachers of Secondary Schools shall be granted selection grade of pay, upon completion of ten years of satisfactory service in the ordinary grade and promotion pay scale shall be granted to teachers of Secondary Schools after completing 12 years after grant of selection grade. It further provides that promotion pay scale shall be granted to L.T. Grade Teachers, only when they have acquired Post Graduate Qualification. It further provides that benefit of selection grade of pay/promotion pay scale shall be payable only to such teacher who has not been promoted, and if someone declines to accept promotion when offered, he shall not be entitled to selection grade/ promotion pay scale.

6. Petitioners are challenging the decision taken by Regional Additional Director (Secondary Education), Nainital, which was communicated to Chief Education Officer, Almora, vide letter dated 12.11.2020 . In the said letter, while dealing with representation made by a similarly situate person, it was held by referring to paragraph no. 4 of Government Order dated 12.07.2002 that, since selection grade/promotion pay scale is given in lieu of promotion and seniority of Basic School Teachers in the cadre of L.T. Grade Teacher has to be reckoned only from the date of their adjustment/promotion in the cadre of L.T. Grade Teacher, therefore, teachers of Basic Schools are entitled to benefit of selection grade/promotion pay scale, only from the date

    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