S S MANOHARA Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition seeks direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the pay scale and other allowances and benefits as of a TGT and a further direction of sanctioning of a post of TGT for the purposes of grant- in-aid and on such sanction being received, direction for appointment of the petitioner as a TGT.

(2.) The petitioner filed the petition stating that the respondents No. 2 being the Andhra Education Society running a chain of schools recognized WP(C)2781/1997 Page 1 of 9 and fully aided by respondent No.1 Director of Education had appointed the petitioner as a TGT in one of the said schools at Janakpuri (impleaded as respondent No.3) in the year 1986, initially temporarily on a consolidated pay and after proper selection by duly constituted Selection Committee, vide appointment letter dated 1st September, 1992 in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300. It was the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner, at the time of filing of this petition in the year 1997 had been teaching in the said school for more than ten years and had teaching experience in other schools also, but was being treated as "Society Staff" because the respondent No.1 Director of Education had not sanctioned the post of a TGT for grant-in-aid purposes. It is the averment of the petitioner that though there is a continuous and perennial need for a TGT as evident from the petitioner having taught in the said school for over ten years but no such post was being sanctioned for the purposes of grant- in- aid. It is further the case of the petitioner that the other TGTs in the school who were performing the same duties as the petitioner but whose salaries were received by way of aid from the Director of Education were in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. The petitioner thus on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" sought the writ/direction aforesaid for payment in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600.

(3.) The senior counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner has since superannuated in or about the year 2000. It is contended that the WP(C)2781/1997 Page 2 of 9 petitioner is thus not claiming the relief of regularization but is claiming the relief of grant of the pay scale of a regular TGT for her entire career in the said school from 1986 till superannuation in the year 2000 or at least from 1992 when she was confirmed and till the age of superannuation in 2000.