IMPORTANT POINT
Eligibility for Selection Grade is determined by the completion of ten years of service as a Primary Teacher, independent of regularization status.

JUDGMENT :

(Ritu Bahri, CJ.) :

The appellants have come-up in Appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13th December, 2021 whereby a bunch of six writ petitions challenging the order dated 8th December, 2017 and the order dated 13th December, 2017 passed by the Principal Secretary and the Director of Education denying grant of the Selection Grade to the respondents-writ petitioners were set aside and the writ petitions were allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-writ petitioners were initially appointed as “Shiksha Bandhu” in the year 2001. Vide order dated 31st January, 2006, they were granted ad hoc status and thereafter, they were placed in the Grade Pay of Rs. 650010500 as payable to the Lecturers (English) and this fact has not been disputed by any of the parties. The respondents-writ petitioners were claiming the benefit of Selection Grade consequent to grant of ad hoc status. The Selection Grade of Rs. 7500-12000 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- was to be determined in view of the parameters laid down by the Government Order No. 655/Madhyamik/2002, dated 12th July, 2002.

3. The case of the respondents-writ petitioners is that as per the above said Government Order dated 12th July, 2002, the Selection Grade was to be given if the employee has completed 10 years of satisfactory service after being placed in common cadre (Sadharan Vetanmaan). The respondents-writ petitioners were granted the benefit of Selection Grade by order dated 27th August, 2016 as per the parameters provided in Government Order dated 12th July, 2002. After grant of the Selection Grade, the same was withdrawn by the Government vide impugned orders dated 8th December, 2017 and 13th December, 2017.

4. The respondents-writ petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition and that writ petition was disposed of by order 28th May, 2019 directing the respondents-State to consider the claim of the petitioners for grant of the Selection Grade while deciding the representation without being influenced by the embargo which had been created by the Government Order dated 08.12.2017. The writ petitions of the respondents-writ petitioners were allowed by the learned Single Judge by observing in Paragraph-9 of the judgment dated 13.12.2021 that once the petitioners have been placed on a ‘Sadharan Vetanman’, and they were granted ad hoc status on 31st January, 2006, for all intents and purposes after serving for 10 years, the object of grant of Selection Grade as per the Government Order of 2002 has been complied with. The fact that they were regularised vide order dated 28th December, 2013 cannot be made a ground to deny them this benefit on rendering 10 years of service. Annexure-5 to Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2602 of 2019 is the Government Order dated 12th July, 2002 for grant of selection grade. As per this Circular, the Primary Teachers will be made available Selection Grade on completion of ten years’ satisfactory service in simple (original) pay-scale.

5. In the facts of the present case, the present petitioners have been treated as ‘Prathmik Shikshak’ vide order dated 31st January 2006 and this fact has not been disputed by the respondents. Once the appellants have not disputed the fact that the respondents-writ petitioners were declared as ‘Prathmik Shikshak’ (Primary Teacher) with effect from 31.01.2006, for all intents and purposes, their ten years’ service has rightly been considered and the learned single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petitions by treating the respondent-writ petitioners as ‘Prathmik Shikshak’ w.e.f. 2006.

6. The argument of the learned counsel for the State that the services of the respondents-writ petitioners were regularized on 28.12.2013 and the ten years period has to be computed from that day is liable to be rejected, as the basic condition of the policy of 2002 is that they should be Primary Teacher, and in the present case, once the respondents-writ petitioners were d