Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 386 (MP)

Rajendra Kumar Pande v. State of M. P.

2004-04-21

S.K.SETH

body2004
ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. (S). No. 122/2003 (Mehmood Khan v. State of M.P. & others), W.P. (S). No. 123/2003 (Mohd. Iliyas Qureshi v. Stata of M.P. & others) and W.P. (S). No. 429/2003 (Harishchand Singh Chouhan & others v. State of M.P. & others) as the controversy in all these matters is identical. 2. This is a classic case of bureaucratic apathy which is writ large and how a small clog in a bureaucratic set-up can create bottlenecks and force the increase in the litigation in a welfare democracy. It is also a classic case of bureaucratic interference and experiment with the vital subject of primary education which is the sole responsibility of the Government under the directive principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. 3. The State Government runs primary schools through the School Education Department and Tribal Welfare Department. Assistant Teacher is the lowest rung in the hierarchy of the department. It is the duty of the Assistant Teacher to impart education to students of primary schools. In order to discharge the Constitutional obligation, both School Education and Tribal Welfare Departments started recruiting teachers on fixed pay from 1981 onwards. Instead of giving appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, persons were recruited as 'Deputy Teacher' on a fixed salary against regular posts of Assistant Teacher with the stipulation that these teachers would draw fixed salary initially for a period of two years and subject to other conditions as mentioned in the appointment, orders issued by the Departments from time to time. It is pertinent to point out that educational qualifications and other requirements for appointment as Assistant Teacher are similar so far as School Education Department and the Tribal Welfare Department are concerned. The Tribal Welfare Department by order dated 2.1.1987, extended the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date earlier than the teachers of School Education Department. This gave rise to the filing of the Original Application at the main seat of Tribunal at Jabalpur where it was registered as OA No. 278/1989. The said petition was filed by madhukant Yadu and 56 others. The said Original Application was heard and decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.8.1992. This gave rise to the filing of the Original Application at the main seat of Tribunal at Jabalpur where it was registered as OA No. 278/1989. The said petition was filed by madhukant Yadu and 56 others. The said Original Application was heard and decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.8.1992. The Tribunal found that the State Government had discriminated between the teachers appointed in the School Education Department and Tribal Welfare Department in the matter of extending the benefit of regular pay scales, therefore, allowed the said Original Application and directed the State Government to accord similar benefit to the teachers of the School Education Department as were given to the teachers of Tribal Welfare Department. The Tribunal also noticed the order dated 17.3.1986 issued by the School Education Department. By the said order, the condition of two years service was done away with and it was ordered that all those Deputy Teachers who had completed one year's service on 1.4.1986 would be entitled to regular pay-scale. The Tribunal also directed the State Government to extend the regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment and it was also directed that the benefit should be given to all teachers and they shall not be compelled to approach the Tribunal for similar benefit individually. 4. The State Government challenged the order passed by the Tribunal before the Supreme Court by filing an SLP No. 6892/1993. The said SLP came up for hearing on 3.1.1994 and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court as under: 'We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Delay condoned. The Special leave petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the large financial implications, we give the petitioners one year's time to settle the claim for the arrears without interest. The application for intervention is also dismissed. These applicants may work out their rights in accordance with law." 5. After the order passed by the Supreme Court, the School Education Department, vide order dated 26.8.1997, sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,36,26,737/- towards the payment of arrears of salary in the regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment. Uptil now, there was no difficulty or confusion with regard to payment of arrears of the regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment. 6. Uptil now, there was no difficulty or confusion with regard to payment of arrears of the regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment. 6. Taking up parochial view of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 2745/1989, the respondents started taking objections that the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment can be given only to those teachers who were appointed during the period 1983-84 just because the applicants who had filed the Original Applications were appointed during the period between 1983-84. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents started recovery proceedings against those who were not appointed during this period, but were extended the benefit of regular pay-scale or refused to extend the benefit, it not already extended. This once again forced some of the teachers of Dewas District to know the doors of Tribunal. OA No. 776/1998 and OA No. 777/1998 were filed before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench. These two OAs filed by the teachers were allowed by the Tribunal by a common order dated 3.11.2001 and once again, the action taken by the respondents was struck down and they were directed to extend the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment irrespective of the fact whether the appointment was made prior to 1983 or subsequent to 31.3.1984. 7. The respondents herein challenged the said common order passed by the Tribunal on 3.11.2001 by filing Writ Petitions before this Court which were registered as WP No. 648/2002 and 649/2002. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed both the Writ Petitions vide order dated 1.5.2002 by a detailed order noticing that the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu's case was approved by the Supreme Court. It is undisputed that after the order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court, instead of preferring any appeal, the respondents have issued directions to comply with the order and an order dated 28.3.2003 has been issued to extend the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment and to release the arrears of salary. It has been stated at the Bar that the applicants who had filed OA Nos. 776/1998 and 777/1998 have actually received the arrears of payment of salary. It has been stated at the Bar that the applicants who had filed OA Nos. 776/1998 and 777/1998 have actually received the arrears of payment of salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court whereby the order of the Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu's case was approved, and in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in WP No. 64812002, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and directions be issued to the respondents to extend the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment to all such similarly placed teachers whether they belong to School Education Department or they belong to Tribal Welfare Department and to put stop to unnecessary litigation. 8. On the other hand, Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submitted that in Madhukant Yadu's case, the benefit was confined only to teachers who were appointed during 1983-84 and was not meant for teachers who were appointed either prior to 1983 or subsequent to 1984. It was also contended that in a similar OA which was allowed by the Gwalior Bench of the Tribunal, State has already preferred a Writ Petition No. 27312002 in the High Court which has been admitted for final hearing and stay has been granted. He, therefore, submitted that this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the material available on record, I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed for the simple reason that the initial order passed by the Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu's case had been approved by the Supreme Court inasmuch as the SLP preferred by the State was not dismissed by one-line order. From the order of the Supreme Court which has been quoted hereinabove, it is clear that the order was passed after hearing the counsels for both the parties, delay was condoned and State was granted a year's time looking to the large financial implications involved in the compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Division Bench of this Court has also held that the order of the Tribunal was approved by the Supreme Court. The Division Bench of this Court has also held that the order of the Tribunal was approved by the Supreme Court. I find no force in the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the benefit of regular pay-scale is confined only to the teachers who were appointed during 1983-84. This argument ignores the fact that for this very reason, the Tribunal allowed Madhukant Yadu' s case inasmuch as no discrimination can be practiced by the State between the two similarly placed teachers merely on the basis of date of appointment. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 648/2002. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted. 10. As regards the contention that the order has been stayed by the Gwalior Bench, the same has no force inasmuch as after the decision of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, the stay order passed by the Gwalior Bench, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not come to the rescue of the respondents/State because the order passed by the Gwalior Bench is only an interim order and not final order. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am bound by the decision of the Supreme. Court as well as of the Division Bench under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts within the territory of India. Once the Supreme Court has approved the order of the Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court, no other course of action is open except to allow the Writ Petition. In the present case, the applicants who were appointed as Deputy Teachers in the year 1984, were given regular appointment vide dated 25.11.1984. By order dated 3.12.1986, the benefit of regular pay-scale were extended to the petitioners. By order dated 25.4.1995, the petitioners were confirmed on the post of Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 1.4.1986. Since the petitioners were already extended the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment, therefore, the respondents started recovery proceedings and recovered the arrears which were paid to the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 3.1.1986. Being aggrieved by the recovery, the present Writ Petition was filed. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed and the recovery proceedings are quashed. Being aggrieved by the recovery, the present Writ Petition was filed. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed and the recovery proceedings are quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner within a period of two months from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till it is actually paid to the petitioner. It is also made clear that since the order governs disposal of other 3 cases as mentioned hereinabove involving the same controversy, therefore, it is necessary to clarify that in case recovery has been made against the petitioners, then the direction with regard to refund shall apply mutatis mutandis to other similarly placed teachers, and in case the benefit has not been extended and the amount of arrears have not been paid, then the same shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till it is actually paid to the teachers individually. It is also made clear that this order shall also be equally applicable to the similarly placed teachers who are working In the Tribal Welfare Department of the State Government and the directions with regard to refund or payment of arrears shall also apply mutatis mutandis to the teachers of the Tribal Welfare Department. Let a copy of the order be sent to Principal Secretary, School Education" Department; Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department; Commissioner, Public Instructions/Director, Public Instructions, so that appropriate instructions are issued forthwith to settle the claims of teachers irrespective of the fact that he or she has filed any case or not. The respondents shall bear the costs of the litigation. Counsel's fee Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand), if" certified.