B S VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated 25-10-2004 (Annexure P-26) and the directions, to the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner after granting Senior Pay Scale to him in the pre revised pay scale of Rs. 700-1100/- with effect from 19-4-1981 and to further grant the benefit of revision of pay in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700/- w.e.f. 1-8-1987 and all the payment of arrears of salary, after revision of his salary in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-18000/- w.e.f. 1-1-1986. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Librarian in the College which was fully receiving the Grant-in-Aid from the State Government. Since the post of Librarian is equated with the post of Lecturer (now redesignated as Assistant Professor), the petitioner was also entitled to the grant of benefit of Senior Pay Scale and Selection Grade Pay Scale in terms of the pay scales prescribed by the M.P. Uchh Siksha Anudan Ayog (in short, 'the Commission'). It is contended that when such a claim was made screening of the case of the petitioner was done. The Committee and also the Commission both have recommended the grant of such benefit to the petitioner but by impugned order, the same was denied. Therefore the writ petition is required to be filed. In response to the allegations made by the petitioner, it is contended that the relaxation in educational qualifications as claimed by the petitioner was not available to him in view of the fact that the rules were framed by the State Government governing the services of the employees and officers of the Higher Education Department. The very same rule would be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not qualified as prescribed for the post of Librarian, he would not entitled to the benefit of Senior Pay Scale. It is further contended that scheme of Pay Revision formulated by the Government of India contains the provisions of career advancement which are available only to those who have qualified the conditions mentioned in the said scheme. Since the petitioner was not fulfilling such conditions, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of Senior Pay Scale. It is further contended that the similar is provision for the purposes of grant of Selection Grade Pay Scale and since the petitioner was not having the qualification for such post again he was not entitled to grant of benefit of Selection Grade Pay Scale.

(2.) Refuting the allegations made in the return, the petitioner has filed the documents to indicate that he has taken part in the training so imparted. He has taken part in the refresher course and since he has qualified in all, he could not have been denied the benefit of Senior and Selection Grade Pay Scale. It is put forth that relaxation was granted in the matter of educational qualification by the State Government to those who were appointed prior to 1-7-1969 and since the petitioner was one who was appointed prior to this date, the benefit was available to him. In view of the this, there was no cogent reason to refuse to accept the report of the Screening Committee and to discard the recommendation of the Commission.

(3.) The other respondents namely, the college and the society running the college have also filed the return but they have simply said that the responsibility is of the State Government and if the amount is made available, the same would be paid to the petitioner as per his entitlement.