Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2840 (RAJ)

Ceeri Educational Society v. M. Raja

2005-10-27

S.N.JHA, Y.R.MEENA

body2005
Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.08.2004 in Civil Writ Petition No. 5017/2004 dismissing the writ petition of the appellants. 2. The appellants had filed the writ petition for quashing the decision of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal partly allowing the application of the respondent holding him entitled to pay as per recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission with effect from the date of appointment and directing the appellants to calculate the amount of difference and pay the same to the respondent within three months. 3. Facts of the case, briefly, are these. Pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 27.04.1996 recruitment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), the respondent made application. After interview etc. he was selected for appointment. The pay scale of the post was Rs. 1,400-2,600, but his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 1,700/-giving him the benefit of seven advance increments taking into account the fact that he was already employed in a school at Rawatbhata. Pursuant to the reminder letter dated 08.01.1997 to join the post, the respondent sent reply on 15.01.1997 wherein he stated among other things (we are not concerned with other parts of the letter) as under:- .“I was promised pay protection till the implementation of pay commission report by way of personal pay (by the Interview Committee, of which you were also a member). There is no mention about it in both your letters i.e., dated 112.1996 and 08.01.1997. I am greatly obliged that you have offered me seven advance increments in the pay scale of Rs. 1,400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600, but I wish to bring to your kind notice that I would be drawing 1,600/-basic pay in the same grade in March 1997. Hence forth, my request to you is that you have to protect my last drawn pay of Atomic Energy Central School (under AEES), as agreed upon by the committee.” (emphasis added) In response to the above letter, the appellants informed the respondent vide letter dated 21.01.1997 that:-“(i) Your basic salary of Rs. 1,600/-in March 1997 with your present employer has been well protected by offering you Rs. 1,700/-basic pay as soon as you join us at CVM. As the pay commission report is likely to be implemented in our school from April 1997 after its announcement, therefore, your pay will be automatically protected at that time. 1,600/-in March 1997 with your present employer has been well protected by offering you Rs. 1,700/-basic pay as soon as you join us at CVM. As the pay commission report is likely to be implemented in our school from April 1997 after its announcement, therefore, your pay will be automatically protected at that time. However, if you are joining us earlier than the implementation of Pay Commission Report the difference in your last drawn salary and the salary at CVM on joining would be given to you as additional personal pay as per rules.” (emphasis added) The respondent thereafter communicated his acceptance vide his letter dated 04.02.1997 in these words:-“and I am pleased to accept the terms and conditions of appointment stated through the above said offer and letters.” The respondent on being relieved from his erstwhile school submitted his joining in the appellant school on 28.04.1997. It is relevant to mention here that in the light of the letter dated 21.01.1997 (Supra), the respondent was allowed additional pay of Rs. 290/-by way of pay protection to make his pay at par with the pay last drawn by him in the former school. .4. In the year 1999, the management of the appellant school took the decision to adopt the pay scales recommended by the 5tn Pay Commission (which had been accepted and implemented by the Central Government with modifications in the meantime) with effect from 01.07.1999. The pay of the teachers and staff of the school including that of the respondent was accordingly fixed. Not satisfied, the respondent filed application, registered as Case No. 46/2000, before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal. The application was allowed vide order dated 01.05.2004 in the manner indicated above. The appellants filed writ petition challenging the order but without any success. They have approached the Division Bench for setting aside the said orders. .5. We heard Counsel for the parties at length. 6. The application was allowed vide order dated 01.05.2004 in the manner indicated above. The appellants filed writ petition challenging the order but without any success. They have approached the Division Bench for setting aside the said orders. .5. We heard Counsel for the parties at length. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the respondent joined the appellant school on the assurance that on implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission his pay would be fixed at par with the pay which he would have drawn on the implementation of the recommendations in the erstwhile school i.e., at par with his revised pay, but he was denied the benefit of the revised pay which he would have drawn in the erstwhile school, had he not joined the appellant school. On behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that the entire claim of the respondent is based on promissory estoppel but the only promise in the letter contained in letter dated 21.01.1997 (Supra), was to the effect that the respondent would be paid the difference between last drawn salary i.e., the salary drawn by him before he left the school and the salary he received on joining the appellant school as personal pay. The respondent was allowed personal pay of Rs. 290/-per month as additional pay to protect his salary last drawn by him i.e., 4,880/-therefore, the claim of the respondent was wholly unfounded and could not be allowed. The Tribunal committed manifest error in holding the respondent entitled to benefit of the 5th Pay Commission Report from the date of his appointment even though the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission were implemented in the appellant school from 01.07.1999 and all teachers and staff of the school are accordingly being paid salary accordingly from that date. 7. It is relevant to mention here that the report of the 5th Pay Commission was implemented in the former school of the respondent with effect from 01.04.1996. The claim of the respondent in a nutshell is that the report having been implemented in the former school with effect from 01.04.1996, he is entitled to pay fixation as per the report from that date, and further entitled to difference between the revised salary which he would have last drawn as his last salary while joining the appellant school and the salary which he received in the appellant-school. 8. 8. The basic facts are not in dispute. The dispute is whether the respondent is entitled to claim the difference between the pay which he would have received as his last drawn revised pay and the salary which he was allowed on joining the appellant school, and have his pay fixed accordingly. 9. It may be kept in mind that the rights of the parties are not governed by any statutory provisions. The appellant school has been established by a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act and the school is run to impart education to the children of the employees of the Central Electronic Engineering Research Institute as also the general public. The rights of the parties have to be worked out on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in the letters dated 15.01.1997, 21.01.1997 and 04.02.1997 referred to above. The first two letters contained offer and counter offer which was finally accepted by the respondent by the third letter. The crucial letter is the letter dated 21.01.1997 which contained the clause regarding payment of difference between last drawn salary and salary payable to the respondent on his joining the appellant school on implementation of the report of the 5th Pay Commission 10. According to the appellants on a plain reading of the letter, the respondent was entitled to difference of salary between last drawn salary actually received by him in the former school whereas according to the respondent, he was entitled to difference of salary between the revised salary which he would have received in the former school as a result of implementation of the 5th Pay Commission Report. Having given our anxious consideration to the contentions we are of the view that the term last drawn salary cannot be stretched to mean the salary which the respondent would have received in the month of April, 1997 (when he left the former school), had he remained in employment of the former school, on implementation of the report of the 5th Pay Commission. As a matter of fact the assurance or promise contained in the letter dated 21.01.1997 which is the sheet anchor of the respondents claim has to be read in the context of the letter of the respondent dated 15.01.1997 (Supra), wherein he stated that he was being offered appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600 but he would be drawing Rs. 1,400-2,600 but he would be drawing Rs. 1,600/-as basic pay in March, 1997 and, accordingly made request to the appellants to protect “my last drawn pay”. It was in these circumstances that in addition to the seven annual advance increments allowed to the respondent by the original appointment letter, he was allowed additional pay of Rs. 290/-by way of pay protection. It is, therefore, clear that what respondent demanded of the appellants was allowed to him. It appears that he submitted the impugned claim when he found that pay of the teachers working in the former school had been fixed in the revised scale as per Report of the 5th Pay Commission with effect from 1996 itself . Had the respondent not left the school and joined the appellant school his pay too would have been fixed accordingly. But that is neither here nor there. As pointed out above, his rights are governed by the terms and conditions contained in the aforementioned three letters. Upholding the claim of the respondent would amount to giving him the benefit of revised pay scale with effect from April, 1997, if not from 1996. The respondent agreed to join school on salary of Rs. 1,700/-per month plus the additional pay of Rs. 290/- as personal pay besides other allowances. We are satisfied that the pay of the respondent fixed by the appellants was in accordance with the assurance and terms and conditions contained in the letters. In these premises, the Tribunal committed error in holding the respondent entitled to the benefit of the revised pay from the date of his entry in the appellant school. The decision, therefore, cannot be sustained. 11. In the result, the decision of the Tribunal dated 01.05.2004 as also the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.08.2004 are set-aside and this appeal is allowed.