JAYASHREE DUTTA CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMTI Jayashree Dutta Choudhury, the petitioner herein, was appointed as Classical teacher on 16. 6. 1978 by the Director of School Education, Govt. of Tripura, the second respondent herein, in the pay scale of Rs. 325-665/ -. In a list of 68 appointees in the offer of appointment dated 25. 4. 1978 (Annexure-1) the petitioner's name was shown at Sl. No. 43 with her educational qualification 'b. A. Sanskrit, Special Hons. in Bengali'. She was initially posted at Narsingarh Higher Secondary School. Since then she has been in service without any interruption. On 23. 4. 1982 the State Government, the first respondent herein, issued a memorandum (Annexure-2) granting higher pay scale of Rs. 325-775/- to the Post Graduate and Honours teachers appointed as Classical/vernacular teachers (including Hindi Teachers and Hindi Pracharaks) with effect from the date of their appointment or the date of acquiring Honours/post Graduate qualification, whichever is later. Though the petitioner had no Post-Graduate or Honours degree in Sanskrit, she was given the above higher pay scale with effect from the date of her appointment presumably on consideration of her Honours degree in Benglai. On 13. 8. 82, about four months after the memo granting higher pay scale to Post Graduate and Honours Classical teachers, the State Government issued a clarification that the higher pay scale would be admissible only to those Classical/vernacular teachers who had Honours/post Graduate degree in the language concerned. Such a degree in any other subject would not entitle them to the higher pay scale of Rs. 325-775/ -. Even after that clarification the petitioner, who has no Post Graduate or Honours degree in Sanskrit, was allowed to get the higher pay scale for a further period of 15 years, when on 19. 7. 1997 she received a copy of the letter dated 20. 2. 1997 of the second respondent (Annexure-3a) addressed to the Headmistress of Narsingarh High School, where she was then posted, communicating a decision that the petitioner being a Classical teacher with no Post Graduate or Honours degree in Sanskrit was not entitled to and was wrongly given the higher pay scale of Rs. 325-775/ -. The Headmistress was accordingly directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the lower pay scale of Rs. 325-665/- with effect from 16. 6. 1978 and to recover the over-payment by instalments from her salary bills. Aggrieved by said decision the petitioner has approached this court by means of the present writ petition assailing the said letter dated 20. 2. 1997 of the second respondent. She obtained an interim order from this court on 28. 7. 1997 staying recovery from her pay bill. Thus, she has been receiving the higher pay scale meant for Post Graduate/honours teachers for more than 28 years. She has called in question legality and correctness of the direction impugned for recovery after such a long lapse of time.

(2.) THE respondents in their counter affidavit have admitted the facts of granting the petitioner higher scale of pay meant for Post Graduate and Honours teachers in the respective subjects only. They contended inter-alia that as she was appointed as Classical teacher in consideration of her graduation with Sanskrit as one of the subjects and did not obtain Post Graduate or Honours in Sanskrit, she could not claim the higher pay scale for her Honours in Bengali. If she had acquired Post Graduate or Honours degree in Sanskrit before or after her appointment, then only she would have been entitled to the said pay scale. It has been further contended that she was wrongly allowed to draw higher pay scale not admissible to her in view of the clarification issued by the State Government on 13. 8. 1982. To explain the delay in taking corrective decision it is contended that this gross irregularity came to light only in 1997 when a proposal to grant her selection grade scale of pay was brought to closer scrutiny. Immediately thereafter impugned direction have been given for re-fixation of her pay and recovery of the over payment by instalments. Thus, there being no illegality in the order impugned the respondents claimed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) MR. S. Talapatra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner tried to canvas one important aspect of the case in favour of granting the petitioner the higher pay scale meant for Post Graduate and Honours teachers. No doubt, she was appointed a Classical teacher, but her educational qualification was B. A. with Sanskrit and special Honours in Bengali at the time of her appointment. She was thus an Honours graduate, though not in Sanskrit. The memorandum dated 23. 4. 82 granting the higher pay scale of Rs. 325-775/- to the Classical/vernacular teachers did not specifically state that such qualification must be in a particular subject only which obviously called for a clarification few months later. His strong submission is that as the higher pay scale was admissible to Classical/vernacular teachers, the petitioner having Honours degree in Bengali was consciously given the higher pay scale presumably treating her as Classical as well as Vernacular teacher. Even after the clarification she was allowed to draw the said higher pay scale which would only confirm the presumption that a conscious decision granting her higher pay scale in consideration of her Honours degree in Bengali was taken by the appropriate authority. It would be unfair and inequitious to suddenly reverse the decision by the successors in office of the respondents and direct recovery of a huge amount from her pay after about 19 years. The amount would be far more at the time of disposal of this case, the period of her receiving the higher pay scale being about 29 years. Thus, the impugned order of recovery would hit her hard and violate the principle of natural justice, Mr. Talapatra submits.