Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 334 (HP)

GEETA DEVI v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-04-16

SANJAY KAROL

body2009
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral):- The present petitioners are, in effect, seeking the benefits of the judgment delivered by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.76 of 1988 titled as Smt. Simro Devi and Others versus State and Others, dated 6th April, 1995. The petitioners, admittedly, are similarly situated persons in the aforesaid writ petition. 2. Be that as it may be, facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are as under:-The petitioners No.1, 2, 4 and 5 were appointed as Home Science Teachers vide order dated 17th June, 1972 (Annexure A-1). They joined the department on 27th June, 1972. Petitioner No.3 was also appointed as Home Science Teacher on 25th September, 1972. Record reveals, which is undisputed, that subsequent to their appointments, the petitioners acquired higher educational qualifications, i.e. B.A. and M.A. between the years 1972 and 1977 (Annexure A-2 to Annexure A-6). 3. In terms of Government letter dated 13th of December, 1958 (Annexure A-8), for the purpose of revision/fixation of scales of pay, the petitioners fall in Category-B, Group-II which provides that all teachers falling in this group should be allowed the revised scale of Rs.80-250/-. 4. The respondent/State, in consultation with the Finance Department took a conscious decision, as conveyed vide letter dated 27.9.1979 (Annexure A-9), of according the benefits of salary to all those persons who had improved their educational qualifications subsequent to their joining as Home Science Teachers. The relevant extract of the said letter is reproduced as under:- “----- However, in order to avoid discrimination between teacher who have already been allowed higher scales of pay on account of having improved their qualifications and those who have not yet been allowed this benefit even though they also possess higher qualification it is decided that all teacher in the Education Department who have improved their qualification before issue of this letter may be allowed the benefit of higher scale of pay on the basis of their qualification. This benefit shall not be allowed to those who are appointed or improve their qualification after the issue of this letter. - - - - - - - - -“ 5. Vide another letter dated 12th of May, 1987 (Annexure A-10), the Government took a decision that the monetary benefits be restricted to the period of 38 months preceding the date of 1st January, 1987. 6. - - - - - - - - -“ 5. Vide another letter dated 12th of May, 1987 (Annexure A-10), the Government took a decision that the monetary benefits be restricted to the period of 38 months preceding the date of 1st January, 1987. 6. The picture thus which emerges, is that the petitioners had acquired higher educational qualification prior to 27th of April, 1977 and thus were entitled to all monetary benefits payable to all of those teachers who had been initially recruited with higher educational qualifications. 7. This position stands fortified from the letter dated 14th of May, 1987 (Annexure A-11) written by the Director of Primary Education, Himachal Pradesh to all the District Primary Education Officers. The relevant extract of the letter is reproduced as under:- “---- Please remember that these are personal scales and have nothing to do with the availability of posts. These are to be granted to them as a result of improvement of qualifications within the period 13.12.1958 to 27.9.1979. ----“ 8. The Director clarified that the higher scales which were to be awarded to the teachers had nothing to do with the availability of the posts as they were granted as a result of improvement of educational qualifications between 13th of December, 1958 upto 27th September, 1979. 9. Therefore, it was expected of the respondent/State to have granted the monetary benefits to all the eligible employees including the petitioners, but, however, the same was not done and the petitioners’ various representations went unheeded leaving them with no option but to file the present petition. 10. In the reply, the only ambiguous defence taken by the respondents is that the petitioners are not eligible for release of higher pay-scale. How they are ineligible has not been explained. They are conspicuously silent with regard to the applicability of various governmental letters/ instructions/clarifications issued from time to time. 11. The respondents have admitted that the similarly situated persons approached the Tribunal and in terms of the decision rendered in Simro Devi (supra), the benefits were given to the petitioners therein. The respondent/State assailed the said decision and the S.L.P. filed by the State stood dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The facts of the present case are identical. The respondent/State assailed the said decision and the S.L.P. filed by the State stood dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The facts of the present case are identical. As such, the benefits of the decision rendered in Simro Devi (supra) need to be accorded to the petitioners as not only are the petitioners similarly situated, but also their right independently flows from various Governmental instructions issued from time to time as referred to hereinabove. 12. The petitioners, as such, are entitled to release of higher pay-scales as due and admissible from the date they acquired higher academic qualifications. The payment of arrears shall be made positively within a period of four months from today failing which, thereafter they shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The petitioners shall also be entitled to costs of Rs.11,000/-.