PRAVABATI CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the refusal of the State -respondents to fix the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of the last pay drawable by her in the substantive post of Assistant Teacher of the K.J. National Government M.E. School, this writ petition is filed by her for appropriate reliefs.

(2.) THE material facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, may be noted at the outset. Following her absorption from the National Discipline Scheme of India, she joined K.J. National Government M.E. School, Mawkhar, Shillong on 9 -3 -1964 as Assistant Teacher. After utilizing her services in various capacities in the Education Department, she was permanently absorbed under the Government of Meghalaya with effect from 1 -10 -1972 vide the order dated 24 -9 -1991 issued by the respondent No. 5. In the year 1995, she was transferred to 61, Meghalaya Girls Bn. NCC, Shillong against the post of LDA in the lower pay scale of 1050 -1735 plus allowances by giving her last pay protection (in the post of Assistant Teacher) vide the order dated 27 -3 - 1995 issued by the respondent No. 5. At this stage, it may be noted that she, after rendering 15 years of continuous and satisfactory service in same post of Assistant Teacher on 1 -1 -1987 with effect from 17 -4 -1964, she was allowed o draw her pay in the extended scale of pay of 1650 - 2360 with effect from 1 -1 -1987 as admissible under the Revision of Pay Rules, 1988. In other words, she was given protection of her last drawn pay in the extended pay scale of 1650 -2360 when she joined the post of LDA 61, Meghalaya Girls Bn. NCC, Shillong on 27 -3 -1995 or nearabout that date. She was subsequently transferred to the Shillong Public School as UDA in the pay scale of 1375 -2390/ - vide the order dated 3 -7 -1996 of the erstwhile Director of Public Instructions, Government of Meghalaya. She retired from service on superannuation in the post of UDA in terms of the order dated 3 -7 -1996 from the Shillong Public School. It may be noted that on her transfer to the post of LDA in the year 1995, she was provisionally allowed by the NCC to draw the last pay of 2,110/ - drawn by her as Assistant Teacher pending fixation of her pay by the Director of Public Instruction. However, some five years after her retirement, the respondent No. 3 issued the corrigendum dated 8 -2 -2005 directing that the office memorandum dated 27 -3 -1995 should be read as "[O]n her own request vide her letter dated 13 -3 -95" instead of "in the interest of public service" and "with pay fixation as admissible under the rules" instead of "with last pay protection" as appeared therein. The net effect of this corrigendum is that she was not allowed to draw her substantive pay at the rate which she would have drawn as Assistant Teacher from the period 1 -4 -95 to 30 -9 -2000. This is how this writ petition came to be filed by her questioning the legality of the corrigendum dated 8 -2 -2005.

(3.) THE writ petition is opposed by the State -respondents as well as the Deputy Accountant General, who have now filed their respective affidavits -in -opposition. It is the case of the State -respondents that the writ petition is barred by laches inasmuch as the impugned order was passed as early as 8 -2 -2005. It is also the case of the State -respondents that the petitioner was transferred from the post of Assistant Teacher in the extended scale of pay of 1650 -2360/ - pm to the lower post of LDA in the NCC Office with the pay scale of 1050 -1735/ - pm on her own request vide his application dated 13 -3 -1995 and not in public interest; her pay for the post of Assistant Teacher at the rate of 2,110/ - could not be protected as she herself applied for the lower post of LDA and her pay had to be regulated under FR -23(iii) as instructed by the Government vide its letter dated 18 -8 -2004. Therefore, she has to draw the maximum pay which has been fixed at 4,685/ - otherwise she would have to draw as the initial pay the minimum of the time scale which is much less and lower than the one fixed at 1,735/ -. According to the State -respondents, the order dated 20 -9 -2004 was passed due to the fact that the scale of pay of the petitioner in the post of LDA had reached the maximum of 1,735/ - at the relevant point of time. It is pointed out by the State -respondents that the Government have taken steps to waive the burden of deduction of 76,219/ - from the gratuity of the petitioner as the same cannot be linked with pay protection. The Deputy Accountant General in his affidavit points out that the pension of the petitioner was settled as per information furnished by the Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Meghalaya and the service books and that the pension amounting to 2,590/ - w.e.f. 1 -10 - 2000 was fixed based on average emoluments arrived at during the period of six months preceding her retirement, while the amount of 86,378/ - admissible towards Death -cum -Retirement Gratuity was calculated based on her last pay 5,235/ - drawn by her at the time of her retirement.