UTTRA KUMARI Vs. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Smt Uttra Kumari joined the Haryana Education Department on 3rd February, 1969, as J. B. T. Teacher. During the service she also passed M. A. in 1976 and B. Ed examination in 1980. In 1984 she was selected by the Beas Sutlaj Link Project, Sundernagar, as B. Ed Mistress on deputation. Accordingly, on 7th March, 1984, under order of the Director of School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, her service were placed at the disposal of B. S. L Project, Sundernagar. It was further stipulated in the same order that she was to be treated on deputation like other employees from the State of Haryana but was not entitled to any deputation allowance or extra pay, etc.

(2.) LATER on when the State of Haryana released the revised grade of pay to all B. Ed qualified teachers, the petitioner was also granted the Masters' scale on the basis of her academic qualifications that is M. A. , B. Ed by the State of Haryana, with effect from the date she pay grade the qualification, that is 23rd June 1980. Resultantly, the pay grade of the petitioner, which was earlier Rs. 525-1050 was revised to Rs. 1400-2600 with effect from 1st January 1986. There- upon, the petitioner represented to the Bhakra Beas Management Board (successor to the Beas Sutlej Link Project), which is a statutory body constituted under the Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966, for the grant of the same pay scale to her as was being granted by the B. B. M. B. to other mistresses in their employment. The request was however declined on the plea that the revised grade could not be granted to the petitioner as she was not entitled to claim any benefit whatsoever of the post of mistress while working on that post as she had not been posted as such with the B. B. M. B. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the same pay scale to the petitioner which is being granted by the B. B. M. B. to a Mistress in their employment

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the respondents, the impugned action is sought to be justified on the ground that as the petitioner at the time of her deputation to the then Beas Sutlej Link Project had clearly undertaken that she would not claim any benefit whatsoever while working on the post, she was now estopped by her conduct to claim any monetary benefit.