R.B.PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts are that the petitioner was appointed as teacher on 09.06.1958 with M.N.M.Chamadia High School, Amod, District Bharuch. He continued in service and ultimately, superannuated on 31.05.1995. On 26.03.1996, the pension of the petitioner was sanctioned as per the order Annexure A. Thereafter, another letter dated 29.01.1997 came to be issued whereby the pension was discontinued on temporary basis. It appears that thereafter, on 12.07.2000, the pension of the petitioner was fixed on Rs.950 with the gratuity amount of Rs.37,620 and out of the said amount, the recovery of Rs.53,358/ was ordered to be made on account of the higher pay scale granted to him. Challenging the said decision, the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application No.9202/00 before this Court which came to be disposed of since the petitioner had alternative remedy. The matter was also carried in Letters Patent being Letters Patent Appeal No.625/00 and vide order dated 09.10.2000, this Court, as per the declaration made by the learned counsel for the appellant directed the appellantpetitioner herein to make representation and the said representation was ordered to be decided within stipulated time limit.

(2.) THE said representation ultimately came to be decided vide order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure G), whereby it has been observed that there is no provision made for granting of higher payscale to the protected teacher and therefore, the higher payscale cannot be granted to the petitioner and the representation was not accepted. It is under these circumstances, for challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 25.07.2002, the petitioner has approached to this Court with twofold reliefs. One is that if higher payscale at one point of time was erroneously granted, the recovery cannot be effected from the pension of the petitioner and the second is to direct the competent authority to grant remaining higher payscale as per the Government Resolution dated 05.07.1991 and further consequential benefits.

(3.) IT may be recorded that during the course of the hearing, Mr.Supehia has brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by this Court dated 21.11.2007 in Special Civil Application No.676/07, wherein similar case of protected teacher for grant of higher payscale was under consideration. In the said matter, this Court had directed the competent authority to take the decision within prescribed time limit. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.11.2007, copy whereof is produced by Mr.Supehia during the course of hearing, the State Government found that the protected teachers would be entitled to the higher payscale and the same was thereafter accordingly given in respect of those teachers who were petitioners in Special Civil Application No.676/07 and another. It has been therefore submitted that the said aspect may also be taken into consideration while examining the aspect as to whether protected teachers would be entitled to higher payscale or not as per the resolution of the Government dated 16.08.1994.