PUSHPLATA THADA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions raised a common question, as such, by consent of both the parties all the writ petitions were taken up for final hearing and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 3661/1996 was filed to quash and set aside the circular dated 27.7.1995 and recovery order dated 26.6.1996. A further prayer to restrain the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner in pursuance to the said order/circular was also made. The contentions of the petitioner is that the petitioner came to be recruited through a duly constituted selection body as Teacher Gr. HI and that the petitioner was confirmed and, therefore, she is a substantive government employee serving under the respondents. The petitioner was regularly granted benefits of salary, payable allowances, annual grade increments and benefit of revision in pay scale as and when the pay scale was revised. Thus, being a substantive Government employee, the petitioner is receiving all due benefits in due time. The petitioner's suitability was also considered and granted the benefit of selection grade which was made applicable after completion of 15 years of service to each government employee. On completion of 15 years of service, the petitioner was granted selection grade in the year 1987.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Circular dated 25.1.1992 only contemplates completion of prescribed period of service, which is to be reckoned on the basis of total length of service for the purpose of grant of selection grade. On 27.7.1995 a circular was passed whereby directions have been issued that for the purpose of grant of selection grade, the service of teachers be counted only from the date he/she acquired training or on completion of 10 years of service with further direction that the period of service rendered by the employees as untrained teacher may be excluded for the purpose of grant of selection grade and after revising the same, arrears from their salary be recovered. It is submitted that the aforesaid circular is absolutely illegal, and void ab initio. The circular granting benefit of selection grade was issued way back on 25.1.1992 and the present circular is neither an amendment in the circular dated 25.1.1992 nor has been passed in supersession of the said circular. According to the petitioner, by the circular dated 27.7.1995 an anomaly has been created in the matter of granting selection grade/scale specially in case of those employees like the petitioner who stands confirmed vide order dated 17.2.1977 and has been held entitled for benefit of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service in compliance of the order dated 25.1.1992. In view of the circular dated 27.7.1995 the respondents have now asked the concerned authorities to initiate action in terms of the said circular.