Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 391 (HP)

KANTA KAMROY v. STATE OF HP

2006-12-13

B.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
JUDGEMENT B.S. Chauhan, Member (A):- The applicant has preferred this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the relief of grant of running pay scale from her initial date of appointment and higher pay scale on acquiring additional qualification with a direction to that effect to the respondents. 2. The case of the applicant in brief is that she was appointed as Nursery Trained Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 125-300 within initial start of Rs. 125/- on 10.11.1976. The applicant had undergone Nursery Training Course, but the applicant had not been given the benefit of annual increment as Nursery Teacher, which is discriminated and arbitrary. The applicant had improved her qualification and completed B.A. in the year 1975, M.A. in 1975 and B. Ed, in the year 1991. The applicant made number of representations to grant her higher pay scale on acquiring higher qualification, but her request was not considered. The applicant alongwith other Nursery Teacher was appointed on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 125-300 w.e.f. 1.4.1990. The main grievance of the applicant is that she has not been granted annual increments from her initial increments i.e. on 10.11.1976 and higher pay scale was not granted to her on improving higher qualification. Feeling aggrieved to this the applicant has filed this original application seeking these reliefs. 3. Reply was filed by the respondents in which the claim of the applicant was disputed. The main objection of the respondents is that the applicant has claimed more than one issue through this original application, which is not permissible. The other ground for opposing the claim of the applicant is that the applicant was appointed as Nursery Teacher as per annexure P-1 with initial start of Rs. 125/- fixed plus usual allowances as sanctioned by the H.P. Govt. from time to time. Respondents have disputed the claim of the applicant on giving the annual increment from the date of initial appointment as she was appointed on fixed amount of Rs. 125/-. It is further clarified in the reply that the applicant was appointed on fixed pay of Rs. 125/- as there were not recruitment and promotion Rules of Nursery Teacher and the regular pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 to these teachers were allowed from 1.4.1990. 125/-. It is further clarified in the reply that the applicant was appointed on fixed pay of Rs. 125/- as there were not recruitment and promotion Rules of Nursery Teacher and the regular pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 to these teachers were allowed from 1.4.1990. The claim of the applicant for higher pay scale on acquiring additional qualification has been disputed on the ground that the applicant is not covered under the instructions issued by the Finance department vide letter dated 13.12.1958 (Annexure R-2). It is further submitted in the reply that the government of Himachal Pradesh had allowed benefit of higher qualification to the category of teachers mentioned in the said letter and the category of Nursery Teacher is not covered under this letter and as such the benefit of higher pay scale is not applicable to this category of employees. It has been further reflected in the-reply that the applicant was allowed regular pay scale on Rs. 1200-2100 at par with other trained Nursery Teachers from 1.4.1990 and the applicant had been granted the same from the said date in accordance with Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is further clarified in the reply that Nursery Teachers and J.B.T. Teachers are neither equal nor are synonymous. The two categories are not at par with each other as Nursery Teachers are meant for pre-primary classes and the J.B.T. Teaches are given training to teach the students from 1st class to 5th class in the primary schools. In view of this she is not entitled to the benefit of higher qualification because category of Nursery Teachers has not been included in the government letter dated 13.12.1958. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Advocate general and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The main argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was not given benefit of annual increment on her appointment since 10.11.976. The learned counsel for the applicant further pleaded that as per F.R. 24 which regulates that an employee is entitled to get the annual increment on completion of one year of service on annual basis. According to him the applicant was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 125-300, which was running scale with a fixed initial start of Rs 125/-. According to him the applicant was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 125-300, which was running scale with a fixed initial start of Rs 125/-. The applicant was entitled to annual increment on completion of one year of service, which was denied to her which is violative of F.R.24. He contended further that regular pay scale was given to the applicant w.e.f. 1.4.1990 as trained nursery teacher to which she was entitled since 1976 i.e. from the date of her initial appointment. He claimed that ask her the instructions of the government issued in 1958, the applicant is entitled To get the regular pay scale on acquiring higher qualification. In support of his contention he referred to judgment of this Tribunal delivered in OA-1547/98 Santosh Sharma vs. State of H.P., in which the similar issue was considered and decided by the order dated 18.11.1998. In reply the learned Additional Advocate General raised preliminary objection that the applicant has claimed more than one relief in this original application which is not permissible under law. He referred to the stand taken by the respondents in the reply filed by respondent/state in which it has been clearly brought out that the applicant was appointed on fixed salary of Rs. 125/- as there were no recruitment and promotion Rules for the post of Nursery Teacher and the applicant was not entitled to the regular pay scale in the absence of recruitment and promotion Rules. He clarified further that the applicant was allowed regular running pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 at par with Nursery Teachers from 1.4.1990. He vehemently argued that notification of the government dated 13.12.1958 is not applicable to the category of Nursery Teachers as the same has not been mentioned in the notification. This being so there is no parity between nursery Teacher and J.B.T. Teachers. As such the applicant is not entitled to regular pay scale on the strength of this notification as the same is not applicable to the Nursery Teachers. In reply the learned counsel for the applicant re-iterated that there is no bar to claim more than one relief in one original application under law, as such there is no infirmity in the original application. 6. In reply the learned counsel for the applicant re-iterated that there is no bar to claim more than one relief in one original application under law, as such there is no infirmity in the original application. 6. As far as the question of regular pay scale on attaining higher qualification is concerned the applicant is not covered under the notification dated 13.12.1958 as the category of Nursery Teacher is not covered in this notification. It is also relevant to. mention here that there is no parity between Nursery Teachers and J.B.T. Teachers, Neither they are equal nor synonymous. In view of this the applicant is not entitled to get higher pay scale on acquiring higher qualification. The applicant has however been allowed higher pay scale of Rs. 12P0-2100 as per with other Nursery Teachers w.e.f. 1.4.1990. 7. It is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed as Nursery Teacher on 10.11.1976in the pay scale of Rs. 125-300 within initial state (sic-stage) of Rs. 125 fixed. It is also accepted position that no annual increment was allowed to the applicant till she was granted regular pay scale on 1.4.1990 alongwith others Nursery Teachers. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal delivered in OA-1547/98. Santosh Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others, on 18.19.1998 in which similar issue has been decided. It is clear from perusal of record and the pleadings that facts and circumstances in the case referred to by the applicant are similar to the case in hand. It is admitted position that the applicant was appointed in the fixed pay scale, but no explanation has been given for denying the annual increments due to her on annual basis. F.R. 24 which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant very clearly provides that an annual increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld due to some reasons. It is not the case of the applicant that increments were withheld due to any reason for either as penalty or unsatisfactory work. Nor is it the respondents case that the applicant was appointed on a fixed pay. In view of the specific provision in FR 24 it is held that the applicant was entitled to get the benefit of annual increments every year starting from 1976. Nor is it the respondents case that the applicant was appointed on a fixed pay. In view of the specific provision in FR 24 it is held that the applicant was entitled to get the benefit of annual increments every year starting from 1976. The respondents are therefore, directed to re-fix her pay after granting necessary increment in each year on the due dates and when they fell due. With regards to the arrears, the law of limitation shall apply. The applicant shall be entitled for the arrears for a period of one year prior to filing of this original application i.e. 10.7.1995, the date on which this original application was filed. 9. The arrears of the increments due to her consequently-from 9.7.1994 shall be paid to the applicant after re-fixation within a period of 3 months from the passing of this order. 10. In the light of above discussion the original application is disposed of with no order as to costs.