NARENDRA NATH SARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This application has been filled to quash the letter dated 22.5.86 (Annexure-D to the writ application) and for issue of a mandamus to fix the pay scales of the petitioners along with the pay scales of the graduate teachers at the scale of Rs. 620-1315 with advance increments from 1.1.81 to 31.12.88 as was given to the graduate teachers and to fix the pay scales at Rs 1375- 3375.00 from 1.1.89 to keep parity with the Graduate Teachers and Sub- Inspectors of Schools.

(2.) The brief facts are as follows: The petitioners were graduates with B.P.Ed/D.P.Ed, degrees and they are serving in the different schools as Physical Instructors. The petitioners being deputed for physical training got the diploma in physical training. The post of physical instructions were created vide Annexure -C to the writ applications, and their scale was fixed at Rs.325-650/- p.m. which was the corresponding scale for the graduate teachers in the schools prior to revision of pay rules. The scale of these persons was raised to Rs 580-1165 in the ROP 1983, but the scale of the graduate teachers was raised to Rs 620-1315. The scale of Hindi/Classical teachers which was revised to Rs 580-1165 was raised to Rs 620-1315 and the same was revised in the 1990 Pay Rules to Rs 1375- 3375. But the pay scale of the petitioners was not accordingly revised. It is stated that by letter dated 28.12.85 the pay scale of the National Fitness Corps Inspector and the National Discipline Scheme Instructor was raised to Rs 580- 1165 vide Annexure-E dated 28.12.85 and Vide Annexure-F dated 21.5.86. The association of the petitioners' made representation to the authority to raise the pay scale, but the same was turned down by the department. The petitioners demanded the same pay scale as given to the graduate teachers of the school. The petitioners further stated that they are entitled to the same pay scale as with the graduate teachers. Annexure-D, the impugned letter is quoted below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_421_GAULT1_1995Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) I have heard Mr B Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A Sharif, learned counsel for the respondents. No affidavit in opposition was filed nor any record has been produced. The submissions of Mr. Kalita are as follows: