DEV RAJ SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to give one increment from the date of appointment of the petitioners as Head Teacher/Centre Head Teachers at the stage of time scale next above their substantive pay drawn by them in respect of their old posts.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that petitioners who are J.B.T. Teachers were initially appointed in the substantive pay scale of Rs.480-880/-. On their acquiring additional qualifications such as Giani, B.A., Prabhakar, etc. over and above their initial qualifications of J.B.T. they were given scale next higher to the scale of Rs.480-800. Petitioners have been promoted as Head Teachers/Centre Head Teachers with effect from the date mentioned against their respective names in the chart given in para 2 of the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioners is that on their promotion as Head Teachers/Centre Head Teachers, they have been given the duties of higher responsibility which involves carrying out the work of greater importance than the one attached to their permanent post. It has further been averred in the petition that Director of Public Instructions (Primary), Punjab, vide his letter dated 31.8.1982, has declared and certified that the post of Head Teacher in the grade of Rs.510-940/- is of relative higher responsibility than the post of J.B.T. Teacher in the grade of Rs.480-880/- and the post of Centre Head Teacher in the grade of Rs.570-1080/- is of relative higher responsibility than the post of Head Teacher and therefore, the pay of the incumbents against the newly upgraded posts of Head Teachers/Centre Head Teachers is to be fixed in terms of provisions of Rule 4.4(a)(i) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I. Petitioners have further averred that they have been making various representations to the department concerned to give them one increment from the date of their appointment at the stage next above the substantive pay being drawn by them in the old post for having been promoted to the new post, but no decision on their representation is being given by the respondents.

(3.) Respondents in their written statement are not admitting the claim of the petitioners for the grant of one advance increment on their promotion on the ground that petitioners are already drawing higher grade of Rs.570-1080/- and Rs.620-1200/- of higher post than from their promotional posts. According to the respondents, the employees who are already drawing higher grade cannot claim the benefit of a post of lower grade as per rules.