HEMLATABEN JAYANTILAL MACWAN Vs. PRINCIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged orders dated 20.3.2011 and 29.3.2011 of respondent no.1 whereby while fixing pay of the petitioner it has been, in fact, reduced. THEre is no dispute about the facts that the petitioner joined service of the respondent as Staff Nurse on 13.3.1975 in the pay scale of Rs.200-340, which was revised as Rs.380-560/- on 13.7.1981. She was promoted as Nurse Tutor in the pay scale of Rs.455-700, which was again revised to Rs.1640-2900 in terms of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission. THEn the petitioner was appointed as Demonstrator in the pay scale of Rs.1740-2900 with effect from 30th January 1993 and she was granted the benefit of higher pay scale with effect from 13.7.1990 on account of her completion of nine years as Tutor. THE pay to which the petitioner had already reached before being appointed as Demonstrator was required to be protected and, in fact, it was protected. However, by virtue of the impugned orders, pay of the petitioner was reduced inspite of previous orders dated 2.11.1999 and 3.12.1999 by which pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.8,275 plus Rs.275 PP as on 1.1.1996 in the revised pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500. THE grievance of the petitioner was that instead of granting second higher pay to the petitioner on account of her continuous service her original pay fixed was disturbed and her pay scale was revised to reduce the pay by the impugned orders.

(2.) THE only contention canvassed on behalf of the respondent was that the petitioner was treated as a new appointee on the post of Demonstrator and her pay was fixed accordingly in view of the clarification issued by the Government by Circular dated 17th June 1994. That Circular, however, could not be shown to be applicable in the facts of the present case insofar as new appointment of the petitioner was on a post carrying higher pay scale. Otherwise, the controversies sought to be raised on behalf of the respondent are admittedly squarely covered by decision of Division Bench of this Court dated 18.6.2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1611 of 2007. Special Leave Petition preferred from that judgment of the Division Bench is stated to have been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.4.2011. THErefore, the petition is required to be allowed. In fact, initially while entertaining the petition for admission and issuing Notice by order dated 30th May 2001 herein ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 9(B) of the petition was granted; and it is couched in the following terms: (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay, implementation, execution, and operation of order dtd.23.3.2001 and 29.3.2001 and direct respondent.no.1 to continue to pay the petitioner scale of Rs.8000-13500/-, which was being paid from 1.3.2000 and further be pleased to stay the recovery which may be issued in pursuance of impugned order, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.

(3.) IT will be open for the applicant,-State to fix the pension on the basis of payment which is actually required to be paid to the original petitioner on the basis of earlier order which is stayed by this Court. However, it is made clear that they will also calculate the pension on the basis of Court's order and the difference will be deposited half yearly before this Court and the same will be deposited in FDR/Recurring Account and the same will be paid to parties who succeed before this Court.