PREM LATA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful Smt. Prem Lata has filed the present regular second appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala who dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant as well as the cross-appeal of the State of Punjab and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.5.1990 passed by Shri J.S. Koery, Senior Sub Judge, Patiala.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Prem Lata filed a suit for declaration that she is entitled to be regularised in the classical and vernacular teacher cadre as Sewing Teacheress with effect from 1.1.1973 with all rights, benefits and privileges granted to other Classical and Vernacular Teacheresses similarly situated according to the Government policy with benefits of handicapped employees having been given Rs. 50/- per month with effect from 15.6.1982 and then Rs. 75/- per month with effect from 1.1.1985. The plaintiff also prayed that her pay be fixed by counting the service with effect from 10.8.1970 and her pay be fixed by adding five increments instead of three increments in the scale of Rs. 570-1080 instead of Rs. 480-880 with effect from 1.1.1978. Plaintiff further prayed for the grant of selection grade of Rs. 620-1200 with effect from 2.1.1978 with all the rights, benefits and privileges with five increments and the plaintiff challenged that withholding of the above benefits on the part of the State of Punjab and District Education Officer, Patiala was unconstitutional, mala fide, discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff also prayed that she be released the above benefits alongwith interest and defendants be called upon to release the benefits as claimed by her.

(3.) It was pleaded by the plaintiff that she is matriculate and is having a three years Diploma in Sewing from the recognised Institute. She was appointed as Social Adult Education worker by the District Education Squad (Rampura Phul), Bathinda in the year 1970 and plaintiff worked as such from 10.8.1970 to 7.8.1971. She was reemployed from 3.9.1971 to 10.2.1972. She was posted at Rampura Phul in the scale of Rs. 125-350. She was appointed as Sewing Teacheress in Government Girls Middle School, Walanwali, District Bathinda by District Education Officer, Bathinda from 12.2.1972 to 14.6.1972 in the scale of Rs. 125-350 in the cadre of Classical and Vernacular Teacheress. After that she was appointed in the Government High School, Dhadhogal Kheri, District Sangrur from 5.1.1973 to 16.6.1973 in the grade of Rs. 170-350 in the cadre of Classical and Vernacular Teacheress and Government High School Balad Kalan, District Sangrur from 10.8.1973 to 9.2.1974 and from 11.2.1974 to 7.9.1976 in Government Girls High School, Moonak, District Sangrur from 7.9.1976 to 26.10.1976 in the same capacity. She was relieved on 2.11.1976 with effect from 26.10.1976, when Mohinder Kaur was transferred from Hoshiarpur to Moonak. However, she remained continuously out of service from 26.10.1976 to 8.4.1980. Later on she approached the District Education Officer, Sangrur and D.P.I., Chandigarh for re-employment in Sangrur District and remained out of service from 26.10.1976 to 8.4.1980. The plaintiff was thus forced to remain out of service. Subsequently, she was posted in Government Middle School, Lad Wanzara, District Sangrur, in the scale of Rs. 570-1080 as Sewing Teacheress against the post of Art and Craft Teacher which is in the grade of Rs. 570-1080 with three advance increments. The Government vide notification dated 28.6.1983 laid down the policy in respect of Classical and Vernacular Teacheresses in the scale of Rs. 570-1080 to Rs. 620-1200 in the ratio of 70 :30 with five advance increments. The Government vide letter dated 9.3.1984 decided that the Classical and Vernacular Teacheress shall also include Sewing Teachers. The defendant No. 2, in view of the letter dated 9.3.1984 instructed the Headmistress Government High School, Anardana Chowk, Patiala vide memo No. E.4(85-10784) dated 2.7.1985 to fix the pay of the plaintiff by adding three increments but the plaintff was entitled to get her pay fixed by five advance increments in the pay scale. This action of the defendant was discriminatory and was challenged in the High Court. The High Court directed that the matter of grant of five increments to Shashtries only and denying the same to other Classical and Vernacular Teacheresses who were in the same cadre was unconstitutional and illegal. The plaintiff being handicapped was also entitled to Rs. 75/- per month as allowance.