SHEULY LASKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both Mr. D.K. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel for Education Department have been heard extensively. Aggrieved by the stoppage of the regular time scale of pay by the respondent authorities to her with effect from November, 2003, the petitioner is filing this writ petition for appropriate relief. The material facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as stipendiary teacher on a monthly stipend of Rs. 900/- per month by the order dated 19.6.1995 in terms of the direction of this Court in C.R. No. 1089/1995. She came to be posted at Biltila L.P. School. One of the terms and conditions of the appointment is that she would be allowed the time scale of pay after successful completion of the Assam Junior Basic Training. However, the respondent authorities never sent her for the training although many other similarly situated stipendiary teachers were deputed for the training. Finally, by the order date 14.2.2001 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar allowed her to draw the time scale of pay of Rs. 3,130-6,600/- per month with other allowances from January, 2001. Her happiness turned out to be temporary as the time scale of pay extended to her was subsequently withdrawn with effect from November, 2003, and the same was replaced by a monthly stipend of Rs. 1,800/- on the ground that she did not complete the Assam Basic Training.

(2.) According to the petitioner, it is not that she had ever refused to undergo the training when being deputed or offered. In the meantime, the petitioner on her own underwent training of similar nature namely, the Certificate in Primary Education (CPE) organized by the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and successfully completed the same with an overall grade point of 3.66 and Grade B, which is categorized as very good qualitative level. At this stage, it may be noted that the Government of Assam in the Education (Elementary) Department in the meantime issued the notification dated 11.4.2003 declaring teachers, who have worked as teachers against sanctioned posts for at least 10 years and have successfully completed certificate (Course) in Primary Education (CPE) conducted by IGNOU in "Distance Mode", as "Trained Teachers". Armed with this, the petitioner once again approached the Respondent No. 2 requesting him to pay her the time scale of pay. Even after this, the time scale was denied to her whereupon she approached this Court in WP(C) No. 1222/2009. This Court by the order dated 23.3.2009 closed the writ petition by leaving the petitioner to submit an appropriate representation before the Respondent No. 2 so as to enable him to take necessary steps in terms of the order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 482/2003. This order was promptly communicated to the Respondent No. 2, who, however, issued the impugned order on the ground already stated above. Aggrieved by this, she is now initiating this second round of litigation.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities cannot take advantage of their own failure to send the petitioner for the training for denying the benefit of time scale of pay to her inasmuch as she has never refused to undergo the basic training; it was the respondent authorities who never deputed her for the training. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the refusal of the respondent No. 2 to deny the time scale to the petitioner even after she had completed the basic training on her own initiative is arbitrary and absolutely unfair, more so, he is taking advantage of his own failure to depute her on training. He, therefore, submits that the impugned is illegal and is liable to be quashed.