KAVITA TIWARI Vs. SATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition, filed under Article 226/ 227 or the Constitution of India, seeks a writ of mandamus/ any other writ for grant of pay scale of the post of Lecturer form the date the petitioner was promoted on the post of Lecturer. It was further prayed that the difference of salary paid to the petitioner and salary of the post of Lecturer be also paid with interest to the petitioner; THE relevant facts in nutshell are that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher and subsequently vide order dated 9.2.1983, she was confirmed on the post of Upper Divisional Teacher. THE petitioner along with others was promoted to the post of Lecturer vide order dated 16.7.1997 (Annexure P/2) on the pay scale of Rs. 1640-60-2600-75-2900. According to the petitioner the petitioner having been promoted, assumed the responsibility of the post of Lecturer at Lalbahadur Shastri Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur. However, the petitioner was paid only salary of the Upper Division Teacher.

(2.) THE Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur passed an order dated 28.8.1997 (Annexure R-2/2) to the effect that the officers who were promoted in the month of July would get the salary of the old post till the promotion is approved by the Government. It was further stated in the order that the petitioner would get arrears of the salary of the promoted post on approval of the promotion. THE petitioner was accordingly deprived of the pay scale of Lecturer which ought to have been paid to her from the time of promotion on the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 16.7.1997. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 198/2003 in this Court. This Court by order dated 22.8.2003 directed the respondent-Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner for grant of pay scale of Lecturer within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the representation. THE respondent No. 2 considered the representation and vide order dated 1.11.2003 (Annexure P/1) rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner cannot be paid salary of the post of Lecturer as files relating to promotion were called for by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and Collector, Bilaspur. It was stated that no direction was issued by the then district administration and as such the petitioner could not be paid the salary of the post of Lecturer.

(3.) SMT. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the State points out that the respondent State has filed its return wherein it is clearly stated as under :- but in the posts like Upper Division Teacher, Lecturer etc. and the posts for which the petitioner is working and the post to which she is seeking promotion, no prior approval is needed from the State Government and the Respondent No. 2 can itself be permitted to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of the post of Lecturer and she could not have been denied on the ground that the files were lying with the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division or Collector, Bilaspur or any other officer. The approval/sanction was not required to be granted by the State under section 58