PUSHPLATA TAMTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Uttar Pradesh Educational (General Education Cadre) Service Rules, 1991 created the post of District Inspector of Schools. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the said Rules were adopted by the State of Uttarakhand. However, in the year 2003, the cadre structure governed by the said Rules was restructured, when the nomenclature of District Inspector of Schools was changed to Additional District Education Officer. The status of Additional District Education Officers remained same as that of District Inspector of Schools. Subsequent thereto, in the year 2006, Uttaranchal Educational (General Education Cadre) Service Rules, 2006 were made. In the said Rules, it was provided that the Additional District Education Officers shall be entitled to the pay-scale of INR 10,650-15,850.00. As on the date of making of the 2006 Rules, Additional District Education Officers of the State of Uttarakhand were in the pay-scale of INR 10,000-15,200.00. One day after making of the 2006 Rules, a Government Order was issued. Thereby, the pay-scale of Additional District Education Officer was enhanced from 10000-15200 to 10650-15850, i.e. the pay-scale of Additional District Education Officers mentioned in the 2006 Rules. In the said Government Order, which was issued on 20th Nov., 2006, an impression was given that the scale of INR 10,000-15,200 was available to two posts, both being of Additional District Education Officers, but one of them was superior to the other. In the present writ petition, it is the contention of the petitioner, principally, that the post of Additional District Education Officer, according to the restructuring as well as in terms of the 2006 Rules, is one and the same, and there is no concept of a superior Additional District Education Officer and an inferior Additional District Education Officer. It was contended that, in the backdrop of what has been stated in the Government Order dated 20th Nov., 2006 read with the 2006 Rules, the one and the only conclusion would be that Additional District Education Officers became entitled to the scale of INR 10,650-15,850, i.e. the scale prescribed for Additional District Education Offices in the 2006 Rules. In the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition, it has been contended that the pay-scale applicable to superior Additional District Education Officers has been increased to INR 10,650-15,850. In the counter affidavit, nothing was brought, wherefrom one can gather the distinction between a superior and an inferior Additional District Education Officer. We, accordingly, on 26th Sept., 2013 granted an opportunity to the State to bring to our notice any Rule, Government Order or instruction, by which two posts of Additional District Education Officers were created, one of them being considered to be a higher post. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Courts order was duly communicated to the officers of the State in time, but he has received no instructions. Accordingly, we have not been shown any Rule, Government Order or instruction by which two posts of Additional District Education Officers were created and one of them was considered to be a higher post. Furthermore, the 2006 Rules being statutory Rules and as the same contemplates the post of Additional District Education Officer and not an inferior and a superior Additional District Education Officer, the real intent and meaning of the Government Order dated 20th Nov., 2006 would that Additional District Education Officers are entitled to the scale of INR 10650-15850, i.e. the scale of Additional District Education Officers mentioned in the 2006 Rules.

(2.) We, accordingly, accept the contention of the petitioner and allow the writ petition with a direction upon the respondents to give to the petitioner the benefit of the scale of INR 10650-15850 with effect from 20th Nov., 2006.

(3.) There is one more contention in the writ petition to the effect that the posts of Joint Director of Education/District Education Officer are lying vacant and no promotional exercise is being carried out for supplying the vacancies available in those posts. A prayer has been made for directing the respondents to initiate promotional exercise to the said posts. In addition to that, it has been contended that if the petitioner is found suitable for being promoted to the said posts, his promotion be given effect to from 27th Oct., 2009 when juniors to the petitioners were promoted. This contention, too, was resisted in the counter affidavit by holding out that the petitioner was holding the inferior post of Additional District Education Officer. The said contention, for the reasons as indicated above, does not hold the fort. In terms of the 2006 Rules and in particular Rule 5 (ii), an Additional District Education Officer in the scale of INR 10,650-15,850 is entitled to be promoted to the posts of Joint Director of Education/Regional Joint Director, etc., provided he/she has completed 15 years service in the Uttaranchal Educational (General Education Cadre) Service and two years service in his/her own pay scale on the first day of the recruitment year, provided, however, he/she is selected by the selection committee. As aforesaid, petitioner should be deemed to have come in the pay-scale of INR 10,650-15,850 with effect from 20th Nov., 2006. Therefore, the petitioner has served for two years in her pay-scale already. She is, therefore, eligible for being considered for promotion. In the backdrop of what has been stated above, we request the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and, in the event, she is selected for being promoted, consider, whether the petitioner should be entitled to the notional benefit of the said promotion with effect from 27th Oct., 2009 when, according to the petitioner, her juniors were promoted.