AMRA WATI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The petitioners are working as teachers in the S.D. Kanya Maha Vidyalya, Rampura Phul, District Bhatinda. They had joined service during the period from April 2, 1956 to Sept. 1, 1967.

(2.) On Oct. 18, 1979, the State Government notified the Punjab Civil Services Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1979. These rules were made effective from Jan. 1, 1978. The petitioners were granted their next increment on Dec. 1, 1978. They allege that the teachers who had joined service after them on Jan. 16, 1969, and were thus junior have, in fact, been granted the next increment with effect from Jan. 16, 1978. As a result, the juniors are drawing a higher rate of pay than the seniors. Replying on the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Privately, Managed Recognised Schools, Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979, the petitioners claim that their ''scale of pay and dearness allowance.....shall not be less than those of the employees of the State Government holding corresponding posts.....'' They further point out that in case where the scales of pay in the private schools are less than those of the employees of the State Government holding correspondent posts, the Director is under a duty to ''direct the managing committee to bring the same at par.........'' The representations submitted by them having yielded no fruitful results, they have approached this Court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to give them the first increment in the revised scale with effect from Jan. 2, 1978, and that the order by which their pay was fixed on the hypothesis that the next increment was to be released in Dec., 1978, be set aside.

(3.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim on the ground that the proviso (ii) of rule 7(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1979, does not apply to the employees of the privately managed aided schools according to the order issued by the State Government vide letter dated Jan. 21, 1981. It has been further stated that the error which had crept into the circular at Annexure R.1 was rectified by the issue of a corrigendum dated Feb. 2, 1981. On these premises, the respondents maintain that the relief claimed by the petitioners is not admissible to them.