MEENA MANRAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were engaged under a non-formal education scheme on temporary basis against newly created post of Project Officer in the pay-scale of Rs. 770/- to Rs. 1600/-. In the year 2001, the Government of India took a decision to abolish the said scheme of non-formal education and initiated another scheme in the name of E.G.S./A.I.A. Consequent to the abolition of the scheme, the petitioners were faced with a situation of termination of their services. In these circumstances, a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42806 of 2000 was filed by Pradeshiya Pariyojna Adhikdari, Anopcharik Shiksha Sangh, U.P., which was disposed of on 9.10.2000 with a direction to the State Government to consider the representations of the petitioners. The said representations came to be dismissed by the State Government on 23.3.2001. However, the State Government taking a lenient view passed an order on 24.3.2001, by which the petitioners, i.e., the Project Officers, who were not having any lien anywhere, their services were decided to be absorbed as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade instead of terminating their services and in pursuance of the said decision, the petitioners were adjusted against the said post in Government Inter Colleges in the pay-scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000/-. Not being satisfied with the aforesaid orders dated 23.3.2001 and 24.3.2001, the petitioners approached this Court by filing various writ petitions, which were clubbed together and decided on 5.4.2002. The order dated 23.3.2001 was quashed. This Court was of the view that as the Government had not addressed itself to factors relevant to the question as to protection of pay and status, the same should be remitted to the State Government for reconsideration. Accordingly, the order dated 23.3.2001 was quashed. The matter was remitted to reconsider the feasibility of protection of pay and status of the petitioners after taking into reckoning of the relevant factors stated in the judgment and, if necessary, to modify its order dated 24.3.2001 accordingly. Thus, essentially the Court was of the view that while absorbing the petitioners as assistant teachers in L.T. Grade, the State Government had not considered the pay and status commensurate with the post of Project Officer, which was being held by them earlier and accordingly, the aforesaid directions were given.

(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid judgment makes it amply clear that the order dated 23.3.2001 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the State Government to reconsider the feasibility of "protection of pay and status of the petitioners after taking into reckoning all the relevant factors stated in the said judgment and if necessary to modify its order dated 24.3.2001, accordingly."

(3.) The said judgment was challenged by the State Government before the Supreme Court by means of Civil Appeal No. 8658 of 2002 and connected appeals, which were dismissed on 1.12.2011. The order passed by the Supreme Court is being quoted hereinbelow: