ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed claiming relief that notesheet dated 12.11.2003 Annexure P-6 and letter dated 3.3.2004 Annexure P-8 be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari and respondents be restrained from reducing pension of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts leading to the present case are that petitioner was appointed as a 'Craft Teacher' vide order dated 10.8.1966 and in pursuance thereof, he had joined at Kawardha on 12.8.1966 vide Annexure P-1. The order of appointment as a 'Craft Teacher' was issued by the office of Divisional Superintendent of Education, Raipur Division, Raipur.

3. The pay scale in which petitioner was appointed as a 'Craft Teacher' was Rs. 150-5-160-6-190 ER-6-220-10-240-ER-12,290/- per month with usual Dearness Allowance as per sanctioned by the State Government from time to time. He was posted at Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kawardha, District Durg. This order of appointment is available on record as Annexure P-1. Petitioner later on applied for the post of Sales Tax Inspector and on being selected had joined the post in pursuance to the appointment order dated 22nd January, 1974 Annexure P-2 whereby he was appointed as Sales Tax Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 246-6-270-10-350-EV-12-400-20-460. Consequent to petitioner's appointment as Sales Tax Inspector Annexure P-2, he had joined his services. Vide Annexure P-3, he was permitted to count his past services in the School Education Department from 12.8.1966 to 31.1.1974 in terms of Finance Department circular dated 26.9.1972.

4. It was also ordered that consequent to adding of the past services in the School Education Department, his pay protection will be in terms of the provisions contained in Fundamental Rule 22-A. Since, petitioner was earlier working as a 'Crafts Teacher' in the pay scale of Rs. 246-460, his pay was protected and his pay was fixed as on 1.2.1974 at Rs. 310/-.

5. It is also not in dispute that petitioner whose pay was subsequently revised in the pay scale of Rs. 4400-125-7000 on completion of 12 years of service was given benefit of Kramonati in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-150-8,000/- and pay was fixed at Rs. 7,250/-.

6. Vide order Annexure P-4, the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Rewa Division Rewa had informed the Commercial Tax Officer, Rewa Circle that benefit of F.R.-22 is available to a permanent employee and if an employee is permanent on the earlier post, then benefit of pay protection was available otherwise not. Thereafter, it has come on record that petitioner had moved an application to the Human Rights Commission as contained in Annexure P-5 where Human Rights Commission has given some directions on 25.10.2002. Vide Annexure P-6, it has come on record that notesheet was drawn to the effect that petitioner was not permanent on the post of 'Craft Teacher' and, therefore, the objection which was taken by the Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts, Rewa was termed to be legal and this notesheet was approved by the Secretary, Finance Department.

7. Consequently, vide order Annexure P-7 Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Madhya Pradesh had informed that in the case of similarly situated employees namely Shri Ramgopal Joshi Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and Shri Jagannath Khandekar the then Commercial Tax Inspector and at present Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, K.L. Pardesi retired Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, State Administrative Tribunal had taken a decision treating them to be quasi permanent and had given them a benefit of pay protection on the basis of they having put in three years of service. It is also submitted that in the case of K.L Pardesi, even the High Court has shown indulgence.

8. Thereafter, Commissioner, Commercial Tax informed the Registrar (Human Rights Commission) Bhopal that the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal was in Personam and not in Rem and, therefore, the objection taken by the Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts, Rewa is to be accepted and a p