Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1194 (JHR)

Putulwa Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-26

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 1698 dated 17.05.2007 (Annexure-4) passed by the Respondent No. 4 namely the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh and has also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s claim in the light of the Government Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 (Annexure-5). 3. The petitioner’s husband Late Ishwari Ram was employed as a teacher in the Middle School, Kandsar, Circle – Katkamsandi in the district of Hazaribagh where he was initially appointed on 20.04.1967 as an Assistant Untrained Teacher. Subsequently, he acquired training and he was granted Matric Trained Scale with effect from 20.08.1971. He passed his graduation in the year 1982 and later, obtained his Post Graduate Degree in March, 1991. He died in harness on 25.06.2001. Upon his death, the petitioner being his widow, filed a representation on 03.08.2006 (Annexure-2) before the concerned authorities to pay her the death-cum-retiral benefits of her husband in the senior scale. When the representation was not disposed of, the petitioner filed a writ application vide W.P.(S) No. 904 of 2007. The writ application was disposed of by directing the respondent No. 4 to consider the petitioner’s claim and pass order in accordance with law. That the petitioner’s representation which was filed afresh, was however, rejected by Respondent No. 4 by the impugned order. 4. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner would explain that the petitioner’s claim for higher scale was based upon the Government Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 (Annexure-5) according to which, the petitioner’s husband was entitled to be considered for the grant of the senior scale i.e. the scale of Rs. 6500 – 10,500/-with effect from 01.01.1986. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Denying and disputing the claim of the petitioner, the stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner’s claim for higher scale is not tenable and as it appears, the petitioner has misconceived the Government Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989. It is sought to be explained that the petitioner’s husband was promoted to Grade-IV in the B.A. Trained Scale in which he has joined on 01.02.1996. It is sought to be explained that the petitioner’s husband was promoted to Grade-IV in the B.A. Trained Scale in which he has joined on 01.02.1996. The Rules relating to promotions of teacher, as has been laid down in Rules IV to VII of the Elementary School Teachers’ Promotion Rules, 1993, prescribes that the next higher grade would be given to the teachers only if he completes 12 years continuous service in the lower grade. The petitioner’s husband had joined the B.A. Trained Scale on 01.02.1996 and had died on 25.06.2001 and as such he, having not completed 12 years of service, as required under the Rules, would not be entitled to any higher scale of pay. 6. As it appears from the rival submissions, the controversy as raised in this case is in respect of the interpretation of the provisions of the Notification (Annexure-5). Upon reading Clause 2 of the Notification issued on 18.12.1989, it appears that the same lays down that the revised pay scales would be applicable only to those teachers who were appointed in service in January, 1986 and thereafter and would not be applicable to such teachers who were either under suspension in January, 1986 or were on leave or were absent from duty on 01.01.1986. Thus, on a plain reading of Clause 2 of the notification, it only indicates that the benefits of the revised pay scale would be available to such teachers who were appointed in January, 1985 and thereafter. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner’s husband was in service in the month of January, 1986. The benefit of the revised pay scale, as made effective vide the notification (Annexure-5), is certainly applicable to the petitioner’s husband. The obvious inference is that the revised scale corresponding to the scale which the teacher was given on the date of notification, has to be given to the teacher by application of the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid notification. For the grant of the higher pay scales, the Rules under the Elementary School Teachers’ Promotion Rules, 1993 would be applicable. 8. For the grant of the higher pay scales, the Rules under the Elementary School Teachers’ Promotion Rules, 1993 would be applicable. 8. However, considering the petitioner’s prayer that she has filed a fresh representation for reconsideration of the earlier decision of the Respondent No. 4 and such representation having not been disposed of, as even acknowledged by the counsel for the respondent State, the matter is remitted back to the Respondent No. 4 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.