DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER Vs. RAVJIBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.09.1999 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No.1 (since deceased) filed Application No.459 of 1998 before the Tribunal challenging the action of the petitioners in not giving him the benefits of pay protection on the ground that there was a break in service of the respondent No.1 of 4 years and 6 days.

(2.) THE case of the applicant ­ respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 15.06.1970 and served till 13.06.1971 in Sarvajanik Vidhyalaya, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, from 14.06.1971 to 09.11.1982, he worked as Assistant Teacher in Democretic Secondary School, Ahmedabad. His pay scale in the said school was Rs.440 ­ Rs.750 of trained graduate teacher. It is further case of the applicant that from 10.11.1982 to 16.11.1986, there was a break in his service. But after the said period, the applicant joined the school of respondent No.2 on 17.11.1986 as Assistant Teacher in secondary section. On joining the said school, the District Education Officer fixed the salary of the applicant in the pay scale of Rs.1400 ­ Rs.2600 by giving him benefits of protection of his past salaries and of past service. However, the Pay Verification Cell of G.H.E's Office raised an objection by letter dated 13.01.1993, on the basis of which the applicant was informed by the school that he was not entitled to protection of his last pay. The applicant, therefore, prayed to consider his service prior to break for the purpose of grant him three tires pay scale. The Tribunal, after considering the Government resolutions dated 31.01.1974 and 01.03.1974 held that the respondent No.1 was entitled to protection of his last pay drawn prior to break in service. The Tribunal, accordingly, allowed the application and directed the respondents to process the case of the applicant for three tires pay scale in light of G.R. dated 16.08.1994 within one month from the receipt of the copy of the judgment excluding the period of break.

(3.) LEARNED Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the petitioners submitted that since it was a case of long break in service of the respondent No.1, an objection was raised against grant protection of last pay drawn by the respondent No.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the respondent No.1 had earlier served in different schools and then joined the respondent No.2 ­ school after a period of more than four years and in such circumstances, the respondent No.1 was not entitled to pay protection. He submitted that the respondent No.1 has not pointed out as to whether the effect of the earlier circular was continued or not and in such circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in protecting the pay of the respondent No.1 and to grant further benefits and G.R. dated 16.08.1994 excluding break in service of the respondent No.1. He, thus, urged to allow this petition.