Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 764 (GAU)

Mariamma Sebastian v. Union of India

2008-10-26

H.N.SARMA, J.CHELAMESWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. The petitioner being unsuccessful in getting relief, as prayed for, in OA No. 250/2001 filed before the Central; Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in terms of the order dated 30.1.2002, has yet made another attempt to salvage her grievance by filing this writ petition. 2. We have heard Dr. N.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Rahman, learned CGSC. 3. The petitioner having been selected for appointment as Junior Teacher under the establishment of Assam Rifles, she joined in the post on 1.6.1987. The existing pay scale of the Junior Teacher, at the relevant time, was Rs. 9,50-1,500 per month plus other allowances as per rules. The petitioner raised grievances that she being graduated with B.Ed, she is entitled to get scale of pay of Rs. 1,400-2,600 per month from the date of her joining and with effect from 1.1.1996 her pay should have been fixed at Rs. 5,500-9,000 per month, that she is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 on completion of 12 years of service with effect from 1.6.1999 and she is also entitled to get teaching allowance @ Rs. 1,00 per month. When these grievances were not meted out by the department, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No 250/2001 seeking necessary relief. 4. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents by Vising written statement. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the matter in its entirety, taking note of the relief that was granted to the petitioner by raising the pay scale of Junior Teacher to the range of Rs. 4,000-7,000 per month with effect from 1.1.1996 and the petitioner not being appointed as trained graduate teacher but as Junior Teacher, held, not be entitled to the pay scale of trained graduate teacher. It was further held that the petitioner is also not entitled to teaching allowance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month as the same not allowable to the teachers under the establishment of Assam Rifles. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition praying for further scrutiny of her grievances. 6. During the course of hearing Dr. 100 per month as the same not allowable to the teachers under the establishment of Assam Rifles. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition praying for further scrutiny of her grievances. 6. During the course of hearing Dr. Singh has submitted that as on date the petitioner has no grievance regarding her claims other than non-payment of scale of pay allowable to the trained graduate teacher, as the other grievances have been settled by the authority to the satisfaction of the petitioner. Dr. Singh submits that the petitioner-being a graduate with B.Ed. Degree is to be categorized as a trained graduate teacher and is entitled to get her salary prescribed for such class of teacher which is higher than the Junior Teacher and the authority has unreasonably denied the same to her. Par contra, Mr. Rahman contends that the petitioner having specifically appointed in the cadre of Junior Teacher she is not entitled to be paid the pay scale of trained graduate teacher. Although the petitioner referred to the benefits given to the Hindi teachers in the establishment of Assam Rifles, the respondents contended that the terms and conditions of appointment of Junior Teacher and the Senior Teacher are different from the Hindi teacher. The appointment of Hindi teacher is made on a special drivers per the policy decision of the Government of India for wide publicity of Hindi language and both the categories can not be equated. Learned Counsel contends that the petitioner has already been granted the revised scale of pay @ Rs. 4,500-7,000 per month with effect from 1.1.1996 as applicable to the Junior Teachers of the Assam Rifles and after completion of 12 years of service on 1.6.1999, the petitioner has been granted financial upgradation in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,500-9,000 per month under Assured Career Progression Scheme as available to the teacher of the Assam Rifles with effect from 8.9.1999 when the aforesaid scheme came into force. 7. Taking note of the submissions made by Dr. Singh, now the point that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid the pay scale of trained graduate teacher. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed as trained graduate teacher. 7. Taking note of the submissions made by Dr. Singh, now the point that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid the pay scale of trained graduate teacher. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed as trained graduate teacher. The petitioner might have had the qualification of graduation with B.Ed, degree, but unless she is appointed to the related post of trained graduate teacher merely by having higher qualifications, she is not entitled to get the benefit of higher pay scale prescribed for such higher post. It is further noticed that the required qualification for Junior Teacher is intermediate or 10+2 standard and not graduate. The petitioner was appointed to the substantive post of Junior Teacher. It is the case of the respondents that the categories of post as trained graduate teacher is not available in the establishment of Assam Rifles. The petitioner having been appointed to the substantive post in the cadre of Junior Teacher and the posts of Junior Teacher and the trained graduate teacher being in different cadre and category, in our considered opinion, the claim of the petitioner is misplaced and she is not entitled to claim the pay scale of trained graduate teacher. 8. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, is dismissed. Petition dismissed.