FR ANTONIO M GOMES Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. The appellant teacher has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order passed by the Addl. District Judge, Margao who allowed the respondent's appeal and dismissed the suit by order dated 29.5.1998 in Regular Civil Suit No.180/91/a.

(2.) The appellant plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of salary and arrears. It was his case that he had been working as Headmaster in the schools run by the defendant No.4 which were aided by the State Government. He was appointed as Headmaster on 8.6.70 in the pay scale of Rs.4252550030680. Under the Circular dated 10.3.1971, the pay scales were revised to Rs.40030640eb40800. After the new scales came, the case of the plaintiff is that, the pay scales as fixed prior to the said revision were protected and as such, the plaintiff's basic pay was at Rs.425/ per month till 8.6.71 and Rs.455/ per month till 8.6.72 and so on. But, while implementing the third pay commission in the year 1978, the Accounts Section of the Director of Education wrongly considered his basic pay as Rs.400/ per month from 8.6.70 and Rs.430/ per month from 8.6.71 and so on and consequently, his dues for salary arrears were to the tune of Rs.19,870/. The plaintiff submitted that he retired as Headmaster in April, 1992 and prior to his retirement, he had filed the present suit praying for declaration that he was entitled for protection of his basic pay at the time of his appointment i. e. Rs.425/ as on 8.6.70 with increment of Rs.30/ from 8.6.71. He also prayed for the direction to the defendants to pay arrears of Rs.19,870/ with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum and also for direction to make future payment of his salary considering that his basic pay on 8.6.70 was Rs.425/. The defendants No.1, 2 and 3 contested the suit contending that as the plaintiff had been appointed on 8.6.70 and the scales had been revised with effect from 27.5.70, the plaintiff was entitled to the revised scales and his basic pay as on 8.6.70 was to be considered as Rs.400/ and not Rs.425/. They further contended that the Circulars issued on 10.3.71 and 13.4.71 had clarified the position and the plaintiff was not entitled for any arrears. The defendant No.4 by its separate written statement also denied the claim of the plaintiff.

(3.) The trial Court, on the basis of the available evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proved that his basic salary on 8.6.71 was Rs.425/ and on 8.6.72 was Rs.455/ and as such, the suit came to be decreed. In the appeal carried to the District Court, the learned Addl. District Judge did not concur with the findings recorded by the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the basic salary of the plaintiff was required to be considered at Rs.400/ from 8.6.70 and not Rs.425/ and, as such, he was not entitled to any protection by virtue of the Circulars and dismissed the suit, allowing the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.