BACHNO GUPTA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Bachno Gupta, petitioner herein was appointed as lecturer in Sanskrit, Govt. Ayurvedic College, Jammu, in the pay scale of Rs. 300 -800 vide Govt. Order No. 342 -MD/G of 1968 dated 24.7.1968. Later on in September, 1973, she was selected by the Public Service Commission (PSC, for short) and then she was appointed as lecturer in Sanskrit in the Education Deptt. and posted in Govt. College for Women, Gandhi nagar, Jammu vide Govt. Order No. 475/Coll. of 1973 dated 21.9.1973. She applied for protection of her pay and the government vide order No. 740 of 1980 dated 28.4.1980 extended the provisions of SRO -649 of 1977 dated 15 -11 -1977 in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of protection of her pay as a special casein relaxation of the relevant rules. It was, however, provided in the said Govt. order that she was not entitled to claim any arrears of pay. Subsequently on 11.7.1980, the Government issued another notification SRO -366 of 1980 by virtue of which note to Article 77 -D of the Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, was added and it was provided that those covered by SRO -346 dated 18.7.1976 shall be entitled to arrears payable with effect from that date.

(2.) THE petitioners version is that because benefit of SRO -649 dated 15.11.1977 was specifically given to her vide Govt. Order No. 740 of 1980 and because of the provisions of Article 77 -D of the above said regulations, she was also entitled to arrears. She, therefore, represented to I he respondent State once again and claimed the arrears but her prayer was, however, turned down vide Dy. Secretary to Govt., Education Departments letter dated 7.7.1981. According to him, the denial of arrears of pay to her is illegal and she has prayed for the issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondent -State to give her the benefit of SRO -366 of 1980 dated 11.7.1980.

(3.) THE respondent -State in objections has stated that vide Govt. Order No. 740 dated 28.4.1980, the provisions of SRO -649 dated 15.11.1977 were extended to the petitioner for the purpose of fixation/ protection of pay as a special case in relaxed ion of the relevant rules. It was specifically provided in the said Govt. Order that she was not entitled to claim any arrears of pay because of the above -said protection of her pay. However, later on SRO -366 of 1980 dated 11.7.1980 come to be issued where under the arrears of pay were made available to cases which were covered by SRO -649. The petitioner asked for the application of SRO -649 as amended by SRO -366, to her case and claimed the arrears but her this demand was not agreed to in view of the fact that application of SRO -649 was extended to her for the purpose of protection of her pay as a special case in relaxation of the rules which concession did not entitled her to claim arrears of pay as per terms of SRO -366 dated 11.7.1980. It has further been mentioned in the objections that SRO -649 allows the protection of pay to those school teachers of the education department, who were recruited directly on the recommendation of the FSC as lecturers in various government colleges. So for the petitioner is concerned, she does not fall in that category in as much as she was working as a lecturer in Govt. Ayurvedic College, Jammu, when she was selected by the PSC consequent to which she was appointed as lecturer in the education department.