THANGJAM YAMA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Ajay Hasia & Ors. Petitioners-Vs- Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors, respondents reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 the Apex Court held thus:

(2.) Now, in the instant case what this Court is to see is that whether there is materials on records for establishing the fact that the action of the State respondents upon the present writ petitioner, namely, Th. Yaima Singh, amounts to arbitrariness which constitutes denial of equality or not.

(3.) Supporting the case of the petitioner Mr N. Kumarjit Singh, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Hindi Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 1.4.1964 and he retired from service w.e.f. 31st October, 1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. While the petitioner was in service, Revision of Pay Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as. ROP 1982) came into force w.e.f 31.3.1982 and as such the petitioner was eligible for consideration for selection grade scale w.e.f. 1.4.1982 by virtue of the related ROP 1982 and apart from it this Court by a judgment and order dated 22.2.1993 passed in C.R. No. 159 of 1983 filed by (The All Manipur Hindi Teachers ' Assn. Manipur & Anr.) directed the State respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioners i.e. Hindi Graduate Teachers at least at par with that of the Graduate teachers in respect of their revised scale of pay i.e. ROP 1982 with effect from the date the Graduate Teachers were getting the revised scale of pay. At this stage Mr N. Kumarjit Singh has drawn my attention to the related order of this Court dated 22.2.93 at Annexure-A/6. I have perused the same. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite his approach to the competent authority for affording the benefits, namely, selection grade scale of Rs.995-40-1435/- the authority concerned did not consider the matter and did not pay heed too to the request and prayer of the writ petitioner. Mr Kumarj it the learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that even the junior Hindi Graduate Teacher, namely Shri L. Dorendra Roy who was appointed as Graduate Teacher only on 17.12.1965 and served in the same school, namely, Lamlai High School, has been given the selection grade scale as per the ROP 1982, but the case of the writ petitioner has been left out by the respondents/authority concerned without any justification. Supporting all the statements so far made by the petitioner in his writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for allowing him to enjoy the selection grade scale of Graduate Teacher of Rs.995-40-1435/-with effect from 31.3.1982 under the ROP 1982. The case of the petitioner is contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. Mr R.K. Jayanta Singh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contends that both the teachers, namely, N. Ningthemjao and L. Dorendra Roy who were initially appointed as graduate Teachers have been enjoying Graduate scale of pay, and were afforded the selection grade scale as per ROP 1982, whereas the writ petitioner was enjoying the scale of pay of under-Graduate Teacher initially and thereafter by virtue of the related ROP time scale of pay of untrained Graduate Hindi teacher and trained Graduate Hindi Teachers has been provided in the said ROP of 1982, in other words, for the untrained Graduate Teacher scale of Rs.575-1380 and for the trained Graduate Hindi Teacher scale of Rs.575-13 80 have been provided in the ROP of 1982 and as such the petitioner cannot claim for time scale of pay either for Graduate Teacher on the trained Graduate Teacher for which time scale of Rs.640-1410/- has been provided in the related ROP of 1982. Mr RK. Jayanta Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate continued his argument on the point that these two teachers, namely, N. Ningthemjao and L. Dorendra Roy were initially appointed as Graduate teachers and as such their cases cannot be equated with the case of the present writ petition.