Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1982 DIGILAW 686 (ALL)

Raj Narain Singh v. State of U. P

1982-05-14

K.N.SINGH

body1982
JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks relief for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the District Inspector of School, Gorakhpur, to fix the petitioners salary in the new scale of pay applicable to the principles of aided Intermediate institutions. 2. Swavalambi Intermediate College, Bishunpura in the District Gorakhpur is an aided and recognised institution under the provisions of intermediate Education Act 1921. Initially the institution was recognised and aided, for imparting education to the Junior High School classes only and the petitioner was appointed Headmaster of the Junior School. Later, the institution started teaching High School and Intermediate classes and by the recognition dated July 1, 1974 the institution was included in the list of aided institution, as a result of which the provisions of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Education (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Salaries Act became applicable and the salary of teachers of the institution was paid by the State Government. On raising of the institution from Junior High School to the High School standard, the petitioner was appointed Headmaster in 1965 and later when the institution was granted recognition for Intermediate classes, in July 1974 the Committee of Management of the institution promoted the petitioner to the post of principal of the institution, His appointment was approved by the Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, by his order dated 4-10-74. On the petitioners appointment as principal of the institution the question of salary payable to him arose. According to the principal he was getting Rs. 680 as basis salary on the date he was appointment to the post of principal of the Institution as such he was entitled to a higher pay in the pay scale of Rs. 550-1200. The District Inspector of School however, fixed his salary at Rs. 550 i.e. at the minimum of the pay-scale of Rs. 550-1200. The petitioner as well as the Committee of Management both made several representations to the District Inspector of Schools as well as to the Deputy Director of Education protesting against the fixation of petitioners salary and requested them to issue of direction for fixation of the petitioners salary correctly in accordance with the Regulations and the Government orders. 550-1200. The petitioner as well as the Committee of Management both made several representations to the District Inspector of Schools as well as to the Deputy Director of Education protesting against the fixation of petitioners salary and requested them to issue of direction for fixation of the petitioners salary correctly in accordance with the Regulations and the Government orders. The Deputy Directors of Education by his order dated 23rd May, 1975 (Annexure 17 to the writ petition) directed the District Inspector of School to fix the petitioners salary in the pay-scale applicable to the principal at a higher stage then what the management had been paying him prior to his promotion. The letter clearly stated that the salary paid by the management to the petitioner prior to July, 1974 should be accepted and his pay should be fixed accordingly. Inspite of this direction the District Inspector of Schools did not fix the petitioners salary. Aggrieved, the petitioner filled the petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools to fix his salary. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I find that the controversy involved in the present case is as to what amount of salary the petitioner was entitled on his promotion to the post of principal of the institution. The Manager of the institution by several letters addressed to the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education, (copies of which have been filed as Annexure 9, 10, 11 and 12 to the writ petition) clearly stated that the petitioners basic salary was Rs. 680 on the day the institution was included in the list of aided institutions in July 1974. The Manager took - pains to explain that the management had been paying salary to on the post of Headmaster of unaided High School in the revised pay-scale prescribed by the State Government vide its Governments orders issued from treat time. It appears that the Deputy Director of Education by his letter No. 7427/11-20 (30)/65-66, dated 1-12-1965 accorded approval to the petitioners appointment to the post of Headmaster. On 30th June, 1974, the management was paying a sum of Rs 680 to the petitioner. His basic salary in the pay-scale was Rs 450-950 prescribed by the Government for the Headmaster of aided institutions. On 30th June, 1974, the management was paying a sum of Rs 680 to the petitioner. His basic salary in the pay-scale was Rs 450-950 prescribed by the Government for the Headmaster of aided institutions. Even though the institution in question was not an aided institutions prior to 30th June, 1974 yet the Management had chosen to give salary to the petitioner and other teachers in accordance with the Government orders prescribing pay scales for the aided institutions. It appears that the District Inspector of Schools refused to recognise the petitioners basic salary of Rs. 680 which was being paid to him by the management prior to his promotion to the post of principal on the ground that the revised pay-scale prescribed by the Government for the aided institutions were not applicable to unaided institutions as such the salary paid by the management was not applicable. There appears to be no good reason for this stand. The managements of some of the institutions were not paying salary in the pay-scales revised by the Government in 1969-72 and 1973, as a result of which the affected employers approached the Government. Thereupon the Government by its order dated 17-4-74 (Annexure 3 to the counter-affidavit) made it clear that the management of the unaided schools should also pay salary to the teachers in accordance with the pay-scales prescribed for aided institutions. In view of this direction issued by the Government, it was not open to the District Inspector of Schools to say that the basic salary which was paid to the petitioner prior to the inclusion of the institution in the list of aided institutions, could not be accepted for the purposes of fixation of his salary in the pay-scale prescribed for the post of principal of aided institutions. 4. It appears that the Deputy Director of Education was fully satisfied with the representation made by the petitioner and the Management of the institution and, consequently, he issued direction on 23-5-75 directing the District Inspector of Schools to fix the petitioner by the management prior to his promotion to the post of principal. The District Inspector of Schools did not implement the orders of the Deputy Director of Education without there being any sufficient cause. The District Inspector of Schools did not implement the orders of the Deputy Director of Education without there being any sufficient cause. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools it has been asserted that since the pay-scale prescribed for aided institutions, was not applicable to unaided institutions, the salary paid by the management to the petitioner prior to his promotion could not be taken into account for the purpose of fixing his salary on the post of principal. As discussed earlier, this stand is contrary to the Government Policy and is devoid of any good reasons. Regulation 48 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, lays down that on promotion to a higher post, initial pay of an employee will be fixed on the minimum pay-scale if his pay is less than the minimum otherwise at the stage of the new time scale next above his pay. This regulation provide a statutory method for fixing the salary of a teacher on his promotion to a higher post carrying higher scale of pay. The District Inspector of Schools was bound to fix the petitioners salary in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 48. Since the petitioner was drawing a sum of Rs. 680 as basic salary at the time when he was promoted to the post of principal, his pay could be fixed at the stage of the new time scale above his pay in the pay-scale of (550-30 700-EB 40-900 EB-50-1200). The fixation of the petitioners salary could not be done at the initial stage of Rs. 550. 5. In the result, alow the petition and direct District Inspector of Schools to fix the petitioners salary in accordance with Regulation 48 and also in accordance with the directions issued by the Deputy Director of Education as contained in his letter, dated 23rd May, 1975 and to pay the same to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.