TAPAN DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitioners along with some other persons were appointed as stipendiary teachers on a fixed pay of Rs. 1,800/- on different dates and at various schools with the conditions, among others, that they should have to undergo Junior Basic Training immediately. There is no dispute that they joined their services without any delay, and have accordingly been paid a fixed pay of Rs. 1,800/- per month till date. They successfully underwent the Junior Basic Training course and have rejoined their respective schools for duty after completion of one year. The simple case of the petitioners is that once they have successfully completed the Junior Basic Training, they, as per the terms and conditions of their appointment orders, are entitled to draw a regular pay scale as admissible to regularly appointed teachers. However, the respondent authorities have refused to do so whereupon this writ petition has been filed by them. At the outset, Mr. U.K. Goswamy, the learned standing counsel for the Education Department, submits that the facts of this case are strikingly similar to the facts in Babul Deka & Ors. Vs. State of Assam, 2009 2 GauLT 9and must, therefore, meet the same fate. I have carefully gone through Babul Deka and am of the view that there is force in the contention of the learned standing counsel for Education Department. Babu Deka was a case in which the appellants therein were also appointed as teachers on stipend pursuant to a scheme formulated by the Government. Their appointment letters also indicated that completion of Basic Training was a condition for grant of regular scale of pay. The subsequent decision of the Government of Assam to recall the benefit of regular pay scale was challenged by those stipendiary teachers by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition whereupon the writ appeal was filed before the Division bench of this Court. The relevant observations are found at paragraph 20 of the judgment, which read thus:

(2.) Need I say more? This writ petition, undoubtedly, has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Nevertheless, it may be said in favour of the petitioners that the dismissal of this writ petition will not bar the respondent authorities from paying regular pay scale in future if they think it fit to do so. As directed by the learned Single Judge, which was not interfered with by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondent authorities shall earmark a reasonable percentage of vacancies in the so-called non-plan posts i.e. the post created pursuant to the abovementioned Article 309 of the Constitution. No costs.