S.MUMTAZ BEGUM Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection passed by the second respondent in proceedings dated 3.12.2003 in respect of the claim of the writ petitioner for disbursement of salary in the cadre of Full Time Vocational Instructor, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Vocational Instructor during the year 1995 and she had completed all necessary Training Programme and became eligible for appointment to the post of Full Time Vocational Instructor in the Education Department. However, the salary attached to the post of Full Time Vocational Instructor had not been paid to the writ petitioner, despite the fact that she is fully qualified to hold the post of Vocational Instructor. However, it is admitted that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Full Time Vocational Instructor from the year 2000 onwards and thereafter, the benefit of Full time salary had been paid to the writ petitioner. In view of the fact that the full time salary attached to the post of Vocational Instructor had not been disbursed to the writ petitioner from the year 1995 onwards, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that similar benefit of grant of salary attached to the post of Full Time Vocational Instructor was granted to many other similarly placed persons like the writ petitioner with retrospective effect. Thus, the writ petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit and the respondents cannot adopt a step motherly treatment in the case of the writ petitioner alone. When the benefit of Full Time Vocational Instructor salary had been paid to the similarly placed persons like the writ petitioner, the same is to be extended to the writ petitioner also. Thus, the order of rejection is contrary to law and is untenable.