NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that he has completed 33 years of qualifying service, but the same is not being counted for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner nor revision of pay of the petitioner has been done in appropriate manner, therefore, he is required to approach this Court by way of filing the present petition. It is contended that initially the petitioner was selected for his appointment as a Deputy Teacher and an order of appointment was issued on 9.11.1973. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner gave his joining, which was accepted. The petitioner discharged his duties continuously, but was paid a fixed salary of Rs.100/- per month. Later on, the petitioner was given the benefit of regularization, but not with retrospective effect, which has resulted in not granting him the benefit of kramonnati pay scale timely. This is how the petitioner was put to financial loss while he was in service. After the retirement, the petitioner's salary has not been revised properly. As a result, he has suffered financial loss in the matter of grant of retiral dues. A legal notice was issued by the petitioner through his counsel, but no steps have been taken by the respondents. Therefore, the present writ petition was required to be filed. In view of these submissions, the petitioner has claimed the following relief:-

(2.) Upon issuance of notice of the writ petition, a return has been filed by the respondents and they have contended that in fact the persons like petitioner were not entitled to grant of such a benefit of counting of previous service rendered by them on fixed salary. One such order issued in respect of a person, who was similarly situated like the petitioner, has already been withdrawn and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim benefit of fixation of salary from day one. It is contended that since the appointment of the petitioner as Up Shikshak was later on regularized on a pensionable post, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit from the date of regularization and not otherwise. It is thus contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record it is clear that the respondents are not aware of the statutory provisions of rules. In fact there was no such post of Up Shikshak or Deputy Teacher sanctioned within the establishment of School Education Department of Government of M.P. Even when the M.P. Education Department (Class-3 Teaching Cadre) Rules, 1973 were framed, the post of Up Shikshak was not included in the said rules. However, looking to the need of the primary schools in rural areas, certain schools were opened and for teaching in the said schools, teachers were appointed. Those teachers were appointed on a fixed salary, and since they were not granted the regular pay scale, many of such teachers approached the M.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No.2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) which was decided decided on 24.8.1992. The original application was allowed and it was held that since such teachers were appointed to teach in the school they would be entitled to the pay scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Teacher. The State Government challenged the said order of Tribunal by filing SLP before the Apex Court, which was registered as SLP No.6892/1993, but the same was dismissed on 3.1.1999. This order of the Tribunal was made applicable in many of the cases filed before this Court and in one of the writ petitions, while granting the benefit of fixation of pay in the prescribed pay scale, this Court has refused to grant the arrears of salary. Such an order was called in question in W.A. No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat Vs. State of M.P. and others). The said matter was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 18.12.2008. It was categorically directed that the benefit of pay in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the persons like petitioner/appellant in the said case. The State Government's writ appeal against the very same decision was dismissed. The said finding recorded in paragraph-19 of the decision reads thus: