Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 904 (PAT)

Uma Shankar Thakur v. State Of Bihar

2005-09-30

BARIN GHOSH, R.N.PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. The matter has been referred to the Division Bench. The petitioner has approached this court under the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner the revised pay scale of Rs. 4,500/-7,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996, which is the revised scale of 1200-30-1380. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Teacher in Primary School in the year 1985 and his qualification at the time of appointment was B.A. with Physical Training. However, he was not allowed the pay scale of Matric trained. He made demand of the pay scale of Matric trained and he was allowed pay scale of Matric trained vide order dated 15.3.1996 with effect from 1.1.1986, Annexure-2. However, he was not allowed the revised pay scale. The petitioner then filed a representation before the District Superintendent of Education claiming the revised pay scale of the Matric trained but no order was passed and as such the petitioner approached this court for issuance of direction, as indicated above. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the claim of the petitioner has been denied and has stated that the representation, Annexure-5, has also been rejected. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that rejection of the representation is against the Government Order itself. In support of his submission he drew our attention to Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents denied the claim. 5. However, on consideration of the submission this much is obvious that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in 1985. At the time of appointment his qualification was B.A. with Physical Training. He was not allowed the Matric trained scale and as such he made a grievance. The grievance of the petitioner was fulfilled vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition and he was allowed Matric trained scale with effect from 1.1.1986. The pay scale was revised but revised pay scale was not allowed to the petitioner and as such he filed representation, Annexure-5, which has been rejected, as stated in the counter affidavit. Annexure-B is the Government Order dated 17.2.1981 which is with respect to appointment of a trained teacher in primary School. Clause 7 of the said Order makes the position clear. Annexure-B is the Government Order dated 17.2.1981 which is with respect to appointment of a trained teacher in primary School. Clause 7 of the said Order makes the position clear. It says that B.A. Physical trained teachers shall be treated as Matric trained teachers for the purpose of pay scale but he will not be entitled to increment till he acquires the qualification of B.Ed. He will remain in the basic pay scale of the Matric trained teachers. It is a Circular/Order of the Government which has been annexed by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The Circular, as has been indicated above, makes the position clear. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner is getting the scale of Matric trained but he is not getting the revised pay scale. The Circular/Order, as indicated, puts restriction with respect to grant of increment till acquiring the qualification of B.Ed. but it does not say that such teachers will not be entitled to revised pay scale of the Matric trained. However, he will not be entitled to increment in the revised pay scale as has been indicated in Annexure-B until he acquires the B.Ed. But it cannot be logically said that the petitioner will not be entitled to revised pay scale. Not granting revised pay scale to the petitioner of Matric trained is against the Circular/Order of the Government itself. 6. Thus, we find merit in the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the revised pay scale to the petitioner. With respect to the other claim such as the time bound promotion etc. the petitioner will be at liberty to raise the same and the respondents are bound to consider it.