STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. TRIKAMBHAI DHULABHAI PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Asstt. G.P. Mr. M.S. Rao, Mr. P.D. Bhate and Mr. R.V. Desai for the petitioner State of Gujarat in this group of petitions.

(2.) In Special Civil Application No. 8072 of 2003, the petitioner State of Gujarat has challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Application No. 268 of 2001 dated 20.12.2001 wherein the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to fix the pay of the respondent according to the Government Resolution dated 29th October, 1977 of granting benefit of one increment from the date of his becoming head master and pay the arrears accordingly in cases where such benefits are not granted earlier. The action of the petitioner in withdrawing benefit of one increment given to the respondent original applicant while fixing his salary in the scale of head master is declared as illegal and the same has been quashed and set aside by the tribunal and it has also been held that there shall be no recovery on this count. The Tribunal has also directed the petitioner to carry out the said directions within three months from the date of the order and in case if the order is not implemented by that time, without any reasonable cause, then, it will carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent p.a. after the expiry of three months after the expiry of the period of three months from the date of the order.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Rao appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the tribunal has misinterpreted the Circular dated 5th January, 1965 which has been produced by the petitioner at annexure-2 page 17 and has submitted that once the assistant teacher receiving the salary in the scale of the post of Head Master and thereafter, if the very same assistant teacher has been appointed on the post of head master, then, that assistant teacher is not entitled for the additional increment while fixing the salary in the post of head master. He also submitted that the tribunal has committed an error in considering the circular dated 5.1.1965 because there is no such provision contained in the said circular giving such benefit to such employee and, therefore, the tribunal has misinterpreted the said circular and has wrongly applied the same to the facts of the present case. Mr. Rao has also read the entire circular before this court and has pointed out that it is the case of appointment from the post of assistant teacher to the post of head master and cannot be considered to be the case of promotion or transfer from the post of assistant teacher to the post of head master and, therefore, the circular dated 5.1.1965 ought not to have been made applicable to the facts of the present case. Except these submissions, no other submissions have been made by the learned AGP Mr. M.S. Rao for the petitioner State.