JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for issuance of writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to sanction L.T. Grade of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the selection grade pay scale of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to the petitioners, and to make all payments, regularly, every month in accordance with such re-fixed salary, and further, for commanding the respondents to disburse to the petitioners the arrears of their salary arisen on account of such re-fixation of salary within a period specified by this Court. 2. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that Kunwar Dhakan Lal Inter College, Sahoda, Bareilly and Maulana Azad Inter College, Bareilly are both recognized and aided educational institutions and are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 [i.e. The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982] and the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 [i.e. The Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971], and that the petitioner No. 1 is working as a Lecturer in Economics at Kunwar Dhakan Lal Inter College, Sahoda, Bareilly, while the petitioner No. 2 is working as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in Maulana Azad Inter College, Bareilly; and that both the petitioners have common grievances with regard to erroneous fixation of the salary of the petitioners as detailed in the writ petition. 3. As regards the petitioner No. 1, it is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that the qualification of the petitioner No. 1 are Master of Arts in Economics, Master of Arts in Political Science and a B.T.C. training certificate; and that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in B.T.C. Grade in the said institution on 7.8.1974; and that on completion of 5 years’ length of service, the petitioner No. 1 was granted suo-motu promotion to C.T. Grade under Regulation 7 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. As per the date-chart filed with the writ petition, the date of sanction of C.T. Grade to the petitioner No. 1 was 1.7.1979. 4. As per the date-chart filed with the writ petition, the date of sanction of C.T. Grade to the petitioner No. 1 was 1.7.1979. 4. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that the petitioner No. 1 was absorbed in L.T. Grade of pay-scale of w.e.f. 1.7.1989 and has been sanctioned the selection grade pay-scale of L.T. Grade i.e. the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.7.1999; and that on 1.8.2006 the petitioner No. 1 has been promoted as Lecturer in Economics and is presently working as such. 5. As regards the petitioner No. 2, it is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that the petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 12.8.1974 as an Assistant Teacher in B.T.C. Grade in Kunwar Dhakan Lal Inter College, Sahoda, Bareilly; and that on completion of 5 years’ length of service in C.T. Grade the petitioner No. 2 was granted suo-motu promotion as an Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade w.e.f. 12.8.1979; and that the petitioner No. 2 was absorbed in L.T. Grade of pay-scale w.e.f. 12.8.1989. 6. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that while working as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade the petitioner No. 2 was transferred from Kunwar Dhakan Lal Inter College, Sahoda, Bareilly to Maulana Azad Inter College, Bareilly on 21.5.1998. 7. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that from 12.8.1999 the petitioner No. 2 has been sanctioned selection grade pay-scale of L.T. Grade i.e. the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and it is in this grade that the petitioner No. 2 is presently working at Maulana Azad Inter College, Bareilly; and that the educational qualification of the petitioner No. 2 are Bachelor of Arts and B.T.C. training certificate. 8. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that both the petitioners have a common grievance of having been sanctioned L.T. Grade of pay scale/absorbed in L.T. Grade of pay scale from 1.7.1989 and 12.8.1989 respectively whereas appropriately such absorption of both the petitioners in L.T. Grade of pay scale should have been from 1.1.1986; and that as a consequence, the petitioners have also suffered with regard to the date of sanction of selection grade pay scale applicable to L.T. Grade teachers. 9. 9. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that from time to time the petitioners have represented before the different educational authorities with regard to the discrepancies, which have crept in the fixation of salary of the petitioners. 10. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that a Communication dated 30th May, 2002 was issued by the District Inspector of Schools to the effect that the fixation of salary in respect of Laxmi Narain Gangwar (petitioner No. 1) did not require any modification. Copy of the said Communication dated 30th May, 2002 has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. 11. Again, the District Inspector of Schools by another Communication dated 12.11.2003 declined to make any modification in the fixation of salary of Parmeshwari Lal Gangwar (petitioner No. 2). Copy of the said Communication dated 12.11.2003 has been filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 12. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that the Joint Director of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, issued a Communication dated 10.3.2005 wherein reference was made to the Government Order dated 3.6.1989, the Government Order dated 16.2.1990 and the Government Order dated 24.5.2004, and the direction was given for acting in accordance with the said Government Orders in regard to the petitioners. Copy of the said Communication dated 10.3.2005 has been filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. 13. However, as nothing was done in the matter of the petitioners, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. 14. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 15. Copy of the said Communication dated 10.3.2005 has been filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. 13. However, as nothing was done in the matter of the petitioners, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. 14. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 15. It is, inter alia, averred in the said counter-affidavit that the petitioner No. 1 was firstly appointed as an Assistant Teacher in J.T.C. Grade on 7.8.1974 and he was promoted in C.T. Grade on 7.8.1979; and that the petitioner No. 2 was firstly appointed in J.T.C. Grade on 8.12.1974, and he was promoted in C.T. Grade on 12.8.1979; and that the petitioner No. 1 was promoted in General L.T. Grade from 1.7.1989 and the petitioner No. 2 was promoted in General L.T. Grade from 12.8.1989; and that the demand of the petitioners for promotion in General L.T. Grade from 1.1.1986 is absolutely wrong and against the Rules and Government Orders and that according to the provisions of Government Order dated 24.5.2004, the C.T. Grade teachers can be included in L.T. Grade after 19.2.1991 or on that date, who completed 5 years of service satisfactorily whereas the petitioners were already included in L.T. Grade before 19.2.1991. 16. The petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit in reply to the aforesaid counter-affidavit. 17. It is, inter alia, stated in the said rejoinder affidavit that the date of promotion of the petitioner No. 1 to C.T. Grade is 1.7.1979 and not 7.8.1979 as alleged in the counter-affidavit. 18. It is, inter alia, further averred in the rejoinder affidavit that the date of first appointment of the petitioner No. 2 to J.T.C. Grade is 12.8.1974 and not 8.12.1974 as alleged in the counter-affidavit. 19. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and perused the record. 20. 19. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and perused the record. 20. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to the Government Order No. 1239 dated 3.6.1989 (Annexure RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit), the Government Order No. 1763 dated 3.6.1989 (Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit), the Order of Director of Education dated 19.10.1989 (Annexure RA-3 to the rejoinder affidavit), and the Government Order No. 13198 dated 2.12.1989 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), and submits that in case a teacher has a total of 10 years’ length of service with 5 years in C.T. Grade then he is entitled to placement/absorption in L.T. Grade of pay scale on completion of 10 years’ length of service. It is submitted that such category of teachers who had earlier functioned in J.T.C. Grade/B.T.C. Grade, placement/absorption in L.T. Grade of pay scale was to be made on completion of 5 years’ length of service in C.T. Grade preceded by 5 years’ length of service in J.T.C. Grade/B.T.C. Grade. It is submitted that the petitioners having already functioned in B.T.C. Grade of pay scale for 5 years, were entitled to sanction of L.T. Grade of pay scale on completion of 5 years in C.T. Grade. However, since such benefit had been sanctioned only with effect from 1.1.1986, even in case where such length of service stood completed prior to 1.1.1986, the placement/absorption in L.T. Grade of pay scale in respect of the petitioners was to be sanctioned with effect from 1.1.1986. Further, the petitioners should have been sanctioned selection grade pay scale applicable to L.T. Grade teachers with effect from 1.1.1996. 21. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that in view of paragraph 9 of the Government Order dated 3.6.1989 (Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit), such C.T. Grade teachers who had completed 10 years’ satisfactory service would be granted L.T. Grade. The petitioners were, therefore, rightly granted L.T. Grade in 1989 on completion of 10 years in C.T. Grade since 1979. 22. 1 to 4 submits that in view of paragraph 9 of the Government Order dated 3.6.1989 (Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit), such C.T. Grade teachers who had completed 10 years’ satisfactory service would be granted L.T. Grade. The petitioners were, therefore, rightly granted L.T. Grade in 1989 on completion of 10 years in C.T. Grade since 1979. 22. As regards the Government Order dated 2.12.1989 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), it is submitted that the said Government Order contemplates completion of 5 years in C.T. Grade, and thereafter, completion of further 10 years’ satisfactory service before a teacher becomes entitled to be placed/absorbed in L.T. Grade. 23. In rejoinder, Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that such Assistant Teachers who had put in 5 years’ length of service in B.T.C. Grade/J.T.C. Grade were entitled to absorption in L.T. Grade of pay scale w.e.f. the date of completion of 5 years’ length of service in C.T. Grade of pay scale and with regard to such teachers there existed no requirement of having completed 10 years’ in C.T. Grade for such benefit. It is further submitted that the interpretation of the Government Order dated 2.12.1989 as suggested by the learned Standing Counsel, is not correct, as such an interpretation would mean that a teacher would be required to complete 15 years’ service in C.T. Grade before he becomes entitled to be placed/absorbed in L.T. Grade, which is evidently not correct. 24. Sri Ashok Khare has placed reliance on the following decisions : (1) Smt. Aruna Ghosh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1995 (3) ESC 92 (All). (2) Smt. Shakuntala Tripathi v. Deputy Director of Education II, Region VII, Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur and others, (1995) 1 UPLBEC 613 : 1995 (1) LBESR 902 . 25. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 26. From the averments made in the writ petition, counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, the following facts emerge in regard to each of the petitioners : Petitioner No. 1 : I. (i) 1974 (7.8.1974)—the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in B.T.C. Grade or J.T.C. Grade. (ii) 1979 (1.7.1979 or 7.8.1979)—the petitioner No. 1 was promoted in C.T. Grade. (iii) 1989 (1.7.1989)—the petitioner No. 1 was placed/absorbed in L.T. Grade. (ii) 1979 (1.7.1979 or 7.8.1979)—the petitioner No. 1 was promoted in C.T. Grade. (iii) 1989 (1.7.1989)—the petitioner No. 1 was placed/absorbed in L.T. Grade. (iv) 1999 (1.7.1999)—the petitioner No. 1 was granted the selection grade pay scale of L.T. Grade. (v) 2006 (1.8.2006)—the petitioner No. 1 was promoted as Lecturer in Economics. Petitioner No. 2 : II. (i) 1974 (12.8.1974)—the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in J.T.C. Grade. (ii) 1979 (12.8.1979)—1the petitioner No. 2 was promoted in C.T. Grade. (iii) 1989 (12.8.1989)—the petitioner No. 2 was placed/absorbed in L.T. Grade. (iv) 1999 (12.8.1999)—the petitioner No. 2 was granted the selection grade pay scale of L.T. Grade. 27. The claim of the petitioners, as noted above, is that they ought to have been granted L.T. Grade pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the selection grade of L.T. Grade pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 28. In order to arrive at a decision on the claim of the petitioners, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and various Government Orders issued from time to time. 29. Regulation 7 (2) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as it stood at the relevant time, provided as follows : Þ7- ¼2½ tgka fdlh laLFkk esa ts0Vh0lh0@ch0Vh0lh0 Js.kh esa dk;Zjr fdlh vè;kid us b.VjfefM;V ;k led{k ijh{kk mrhZ.k dj yh gks ;k og Áfkf{kr Lukrd gks vkSj ml Js.kh esa ikap o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj yh gks] rks ÁcUèk lfefr }kjk lh0Vh0 Js.kh esa inksUufr fd;k tk;sxk vkSj ,slh inksUufr dh lwpuk fujh{kd dks rqjUr nh tk;sxhAÞ 30. As noted above, both the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in B.T.C. Grade/J.T.C. Grade in the year 1974. Therefore, in view of the above-quoted provisions of Regulation 7(2), both the petitioners were promoted in C.T. Grade in the year 1979. 31. The Government Order No. 1239 dated 3rd June, 1989 (Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit) was issued in regard to salary fixation in the revised pay-scales (enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1986) in respect of the teachers working in the aided educational institutions. 31. The Government Order No. 1239 dated 3rd June, 1989 (Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit) was issued in regard to salary fixation in the revised pay-scales (enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1986) in respect of the teachers working in the aided educational institutions. Clause 9 of Paragraph 3 of the said Government Order provided as under : Þ¼9½ ek/;fed fo|ky; ds lh0Vh0 xzsM ds ,sls v/;kid tks Áfkf{kr Lukrd gksa rFkk muds }kjk 10 o"kZ dh larks"ktud lsok iwjh dh tk pqdh gks mUgs ,y0Vh0 xzsM fn;k tk;sxk rFkk mudk osru fu/kkZj.k mi;qZDr ÁfØ;k ds vuqlkj ,y0Vh0 xzsM esa fd;k tk;sxkA ,y0Vh0 xzsM esa tkus okys ,sls lh0Vh0 xzsM ds fk{kd osru fu/kkZj.k dh frfFk dks pkgs lh0Vh0 xzsM ds lkèkkj.k osrueku esa dk;Zjr jgs gksa ;k lsysDku xzsM esa] mudk osru fu/kkZj.k ,y0Vh0 xzsM ds lkèkkj.k osrueku esa fd;k tk;sxkAÞ 32. The above-quoted Clause 9, inter-alia, laid down that such teachers of C.T. Grade in the Madhyamik Vidyayala who were trained graduates and who had completed 10 years’ satisfactory service, would be granted L.T. Grade. Therefore, this Clause required completion of 10 years’ satisfactory service in C.T. Grade by a teacher before he could be granted L.T. Grade. 33. It may be mentioned that another Government Order No. 1763 dated 3rd June, 1989 (Annexure RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit) was issued in regard to fixation of salary in the revised pay-scales (enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1986) in respect of the Government employees. 34. The Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad issued an Order dated 19.10.1989 (Annexure RA-3 to the rejoinder affidavit). 33. It may be mentioned that another Government Order No. 1763 dated 3rd June, 1989 (Annexure RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit) was issued in regard to fixation of salary in the revised pay-scales (enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1986) in respect of the Government employees. 34. The Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad issued an Order dated 19.10.1989 (Annexure RA-3 to the rejoinder affidavit). Paragraph 12 of the said Order provided as follows : Þkkluknsk la[;k 3299@15&7&89&1 ¼136½ fk{kk vuqHkkx&7 fnukad 11 vxLr 1989 }kjk lh0Vh0 xzsM dks MkbZax dSMj ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k gSA bl Ádkj vkkldh; lgk;rk ÁkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa lh0Vh0 xzsM dk dksbZ in l`ftr ugha fd;k tk;sxk vkSj u fdlh v/;kid dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA kkluknsk la[;k os0vkj0&2&1239 nl&8&ch&89 fo0os0vk0 vuqHkkx&2 fnukad 3 twu] 89 ds fcUnq 9 ds vuqlkj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds lh0Vh0 xzsM ds ,sls v/;kid tks Áfkf{kr Lukrd mikf/k ds lkFk ,y0Vh0ch0,M0 gks rFkk muds }kjk 10 o"kZ dh larks"ktud lsok iwjh dh tk pqdh gks mUgsa ,y0Vh0 xzsM fn;k tk;sxk rFkk mudk osru fu/kkZj.k mijksDr ÁfØ;k ds vuqlkj ,y0Vh0 xzsM esa fd;k tk;sxkA ,y0Vh0 xzsM esa tkus okys ,sls lh0Vh0 xzsM ds fk{kd] osru fu/kkZj.k dh frfFk dks pkgs lkèkkj.k osrueku esa dk;Zjr jgs gksa ;k lsysDlu xzsM esa] mudk osru fu/kkZj.k ,y0Vh0 xzsM ds lk/kkj.k osrueku esa fd;k tk;sxkAÞ 35. The above-quoted Paragraph 12 of the Order reiterated that by the Government Order dated 11th August, 1989, C.T. Grade had been declared as a dying-cadre, and thus, no post of C.T. Grade would be created in the Private Aided Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalayas nor would any teacher be appointed. The above-quoted Paragraph further reiterated that according to Clause 9 of the Government Order No. 1239 dated 3rd June, 1989, such teachers of C.T. Grade in Madhyamik Vidyalayas, who were trained graduate-degree holders with L.T./B.Ed. and who had completed 10 years’ satisfactory service, would be granted L.T. Grade. 36. Thus, the above-quoted Paragraph 12 reiterated that completion of 10 years’ satisfactory service by a teacher of C.T. Grade was necessary before he could be granted L.T. Grade. 37. The above provisions contained in Paragraph 12 of the Order dated 19.10.1989 were clarified/amended by the Order dated 2.12.1989 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). 36. Thus, the above-quoted Paragraph 12 reiterated that completion of 10 years’ satisfactory service by a teacher of C.T. Grade was necessary before he could be granted L.T. Grade. 37. The above provisions contained in Paragraph 12 of the Order dated 19.10.1989 were clarified/amended by the Order dated 2.12.1989 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). Accordingly, Para 12 of the Order dated 19.10.1989, as amended by the Order dated 2.12.1989, was as under : Þbl Ádkj iSjk 12 dk fuEu lakksf/kr :i i<+k tk;s % kkluknsk la[;k 3299@15&7&89&1 ¼136½@89] fk{kk vuqHkkx&7] fnukad 11 vxLr] 1989 }kjk lh0Vh0 xzsM dks Mkbax dSMj ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k gSA bl Ádkj vkkldh; lgk;rk ÁkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa lh0Vh0 xzsM dk dksbZ in l`ftr ugha fd;k tk;sxk vkSj u fdlh v/;kid dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA kklnuknsk la[;k&os0vk0&2&1239@nl&8&ch0@89] fo0os0vk0 vuqHkkx&2] fnukad 3 twu] 1989 ds fcUnq 9 ds vuqlkj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds lh0Vh0 xzsM ds ,sls v/;kid tks Áfrkr Lukrd ¼Lukrd mikf/k ds lkFk ,y0Vh0@ch0,M0 vFkok lh0Vh0 xzsM esa Áfkf{kr Lukrd ftUgksaus bl osru Øe esa ikap o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj yh gks½ rFkk muds }kjk 10 o"kZ dh larks"ktud lsok iwjh dh tk jgh gks] mUgsa ,y0Vh0 xzsM fn;k tk;sxk rFkk mudk osru fu/kkZj.k mijksDr ÁfØ;k ds vuqlkj ,y0Vh0 xzsM esa fd;k tk,xkA ,y0Vh0 xzsM esa tkus okys ,sls lh0Vh0 xzsM fk{kd] osru fu/kkZj.k dh frfFk dks pkgs lk/kkj.k osrueku esa dk;Zjr jgs gksa ;k lsysDlu xzsM esa] mudk osru fu/kkZfjr ,y0Vh0 xzsM ds lk/kkj.k osrueku esa fd;k tk;sxkAÞ 38. In view of the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12, such teachers of C.T. Grade who were trained graduates (graduate-degree-holders with L.T./B.Ed. or trained graduates in C.T. Grade who had completed 5 years’ service in such grade) and who had completed 10 years’ satisfactory service, would be granted L.T. Grade. Therefore, this Paragraph 12, inter-alia, required completion of 5 years’ service in C.T. Grade and 10 years’ satisfactory service by a teacher before he could be granted L.T. Grade. 39. Therefore, in view of the amended Paragraph 12, a teacher was required to complete 5 years’ service in C.T. Grade and 10 years’ satisfactory service as a teacher before he could be granted L.T. Grade. 39. Therefore, in view of the amended Paragraph 12, a teacher was required to complete 5 years’ service in C.T. Grade and 10 years’ satisfactory service as a teacher before he could be granted L.T. Grade. In other words, on completion of total length of 10 years’ satisfactory service with 5 years’ service in C.T. Grade, a teacher became entitled to placement/absorption in L.T. Grade provided such teacher fulfilled the requirements of training and academic qualifications as provided in the above-quoted Paragraph 12. 40. In the present case, as noted above, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in B.T.C. Grade/J.T.C. Grade in the year 1974, and he was promoted in C.T. Grade in the year 1979. Thus, the petitioner No. 1 completed 5 years’ service in C.T. Grade in the year 1984. Further, the petitioner No. 1 also completed 10 years’ total service in the year 1984. Therefore, before the relevant date for grant of the benefit of L.T. Grade, namely, 1.1.1986, the petitioner No. 1 had already completed 10 years’ total length of service in the year 1984 including 5 years’ service in C.T. Grade. As such, the petitioner No. 1 became entitled to the grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 provided 10 years’ service rendered by him was satisfactory and he fulfilled the requirements of training and academic qualifications as laid-down in the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12. 41. Again, as noted earlier, the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in J.T.C. Grade in the year 1974, and he was promoted in C.T. Grade in the year 1979. Thus, the petitioner No. 2 completed 5 years’ service in C.T. Grade in the year 1984. Further, the petitioner No. 2 also completed 10 years’ total service in the year 1984. Therefore, before the relevant date for grant of the benefit of L.T. Grade, namely, 1.1.1986, the petitioner No. 2 had already completed 10 years’ total length of service in the year 1984 including 5 years’ service in C.T. Grade. As such, the petitioner No. 2 became entitled to the grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 provided 10 years’ service rendered by him was satisfactory and he fulfilled the requirements of training and academic qualifications as laid-down in the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12. 42. As such, the petitioner No. 2 became entitled to the grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 provided 10 years’ service rendered by him was satisfactory and he fulfilled the requirements of training and academic qualifications as laid-down in the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12. 42. Further, in case the petitioners were to be granted L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986, they would become entitled to the grant of the selection grade pay-scale of L.T. Grade on the expiry of the requisite period w.e.f. 1.1.1986. 43. In view of the above, it is evident that the stand of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 as contained in the Communication dated 30th May, 2002 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and the Communication dated 12.11.2003 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), as also in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondents, that 10 years’ service in C.T. Grade was required for grant of L.T. Grade, is not correct and is contrary to the provisions contained in the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12. As noted above, the said Paragraph 12 required completion of a total length of 10 years’ satisfactory service including 5 years’ service in C.T. Grade by a teacher for becoming entitled to placement/absorption in L.T. Grade. 44. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, that the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12 contemplates completion of 5 years’ service in C.T. Grade, and thereafter, completion of a further 10 years’ service before a teacher becomes entitled to be placed/absorbed in L.T. Grade, in my view, is not correct. Such an interpretation would mean that a teacher would be required to complete 15 years’ service in C.T. Grade before he becomes entitled to be placed/absorbed in L.T. Grade which is evidently not correct and is contrary to even the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 as mentioned above. 45. Such an interpretation would mean that a teacher would be required to complete 15 years’ service in C.T. Grade before he becomes entitled to be placed/absorbed in L.T. Grade which is evidently not correct and is contrary to even the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 as mentioned above. 45. It is, therefore, concluded that each of the petitioners completed 5 years’ service in C.T. Grade and 10 years’ total length of service as a teacher in the year 1984 i.e. prior to the relevant date, namely, 1.1.1986, and each of the petitioners, therefore, became entitled to grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 provided the 10 years’ service rendered by each of them was satisfactory and each of them fulfilled the requirements of training and academic qualifications as per the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12. Hence, in case it is found that the 10 years’ service rendered by each of the petitioners, as mentioned above, was satisfactory and each of the petitioners fulfilled the requirements of training and academic qualifications as per the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12, each of the petitioners would be entitled to grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The findings on the questions of 10 years’ service rendered by each of the petitioners being satisfactory and each of the petitioners fulfilling the requirements of training and academic qualifications as per the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12, will have to be recorded by the District Inspector of Schools on a consideration of the record. Therefore, the claim of each of the petitioners for grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and grant of selection grade pay scale of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1996 requires to be considered at the level of the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. 46. The above conclusion is supported by the decisions relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. 47. In Smt. Aruna Ghosh case (supra), this Court, inter alia, referred to Paragraph 12 of the Order dated 19.10.1989 and the amended Paragraph 12 as amended by the Order dated 2.12.1989, and concluded as under (Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said ESC) : “7. 47. In Smt. Aruna Ghosh case (supra), this Court, inter alia, referred to Paragraph 12 of the Order dated 19.10.1989 and the amended Paragraph 12 as amended by the Order dated 2.12.1989, and concluded as under (Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said ESC) : “7. It is evident that a C.T. Grade teacher would be entitled to get L.T. Grade if he has completed 5 years service in C.T. Grade and 10 years satisfactory service as a teacher and is possessed of the requisite training and other academic qualifications. The petitioner has certainly completed 5 years service in C.T. Grade but the question whether 10 years of his over all tenure as a teacher was satisfactory is a question which requires to be determined. In case it is found that his overall services as a teacher during last 10 years had been satisfactory, he would be entitled to L.T. Grade. 7. In view of the above discussion I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be given C.T. Grade w.e.f. 19.2.1986 and his claim for L.T. Grade requires to be considered at the level of the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the body of judgment. 8. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-fix the salary of the petitioner in C.T. Grade w.e.f. 19.2.1986 and pay to him the arrears of salary and other emoluments accordingly. The District Inspector of Schools shall examine the petitioners claim for L.T. Grade in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the body of this judgment, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” (Emphasis supplied) 48. In Smt. Shakuntala Tripathi case (supra), this counter-affidavit held as under (Paragraph 4 of the said LBESR) : “.............But the impugned order in so far as it holds that the petitioner would be entitled to L.T. Grade with effect from 1.7.1990 i.e. after completion of 10 years’ continuous satisfactory service in C.T. grade, is to my mind, founded on misreading and is contrary to the intendment of the G.O. aforesaid. What is required in order to qualify for L.T. Grade in accordance with the G.O. aforestated is to have five years’ service in C.T. grade and 10 years over-all satisfactory service. The words ‘satisfactory service’ (Santosh Janak Seva) occurring in G.O. aforestated, in my opinion, include the service rendered by the petitioner in J.T.C. grade as well. 10 years’ satisfactory service within the meaning of the G.O. aforestated cannot be circumscribed to service rendered in C.T. Grade alone. That is how I have construed the G.O. aforesaid, which amended an earlier G.O. dated 19.10.1989, in writ petition No. 16360 of 1991, Smt. Aruna Ghosh v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 8.2.1995. I am of the view that on a proper construction of the G.O. aforestated, the petitioner would be entitled to get L.T. grade on completion of 5 years’ service in C.T. grade and 10 years’ overall satisfactory service after the institution was upgraded to the level of High School. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be modified to that extent.” (Emphasis supplied) 49. In view of the above decision in Smt. Shakuntala Tripathis case (supra), it is evident that the 5 years’ service rendered by each of the petitioners in B.T.C. Grade/J.T.C. Grade during the period from 1974 to 1979 would be counted in computation of 10 years’ total length of service rendered by each of the petitioners. Therefore, each of the petitioners completed 10 years’ service in the year 1984. 50. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, and the same is accordingly allowed. 51. The District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly (respondent No. 3) is directed to examine the claim of each of the petitioners for grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and for grant of the selection grade pay scale of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the claim of the petitioners is accepted, and the petitioners are found entitled to any arrears of salary and other emoluments, the same will be paid to the petitioners by the respondent Nos. In case the claim of the petitioners is accepted, and the petitioners are found entitled to any arrears of salary and other emoluments, the same will be paid to the petitioners by the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 within a further period of three months from the date of acceptance of the claim of the petitioners. 52. I order accordingly. ————