Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 361 (GAU)

Pradip Debnath v. State of Tripura

2009-05-28

MAIBAM B.K.SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Maibam B.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. 2. The writ petitioners are graduates in Science subjects. They were appointed as Science Teachers in the year 1992 on a fixed scale of Rs. 800 per month and they are claiming regular scale of pay of Rs. 1300-3220 w.e.f. 1.10.1992, i.e., the date from which other teachers, similarly appointed on fixed scales, were granted regular scales of pay. The petitioners have been given the benefit of regular scale of pay only from 1.3.1996. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been discriminated by not giving the benefit of regular scale of pay w.e.f. 1.10.1992 instead of from 1.3.1996. 3. The admitted position is that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were duly appointed as Assistant Teachers of Government aided School, Jatinda Kr. High School, Ranirbazar, Tripura (West) on a consolidated pay of Rs. 800 per month each with approval of the Director of School Education w.e.f. 24.2.1992 and 14.8.1992 respectively. It is also established that the present petitioners and some other employees of Government aided schools were given the benefit of regular scales of pay w.e.f. 1.3.1996 vide Memo dated 18.10.1996 issued by the Director of School Education. On the other hand, the State Government, vide order dated 1.10.1992, granted the benefit of regular scales of pay to its fixed pay teachers, graduates and undergraduates, with effect from the date of the order, i.e., 1.10.1992. Further, the State Government, vide order dated 10.6.1999, extended the benefit of regular scales of pay to fixed pay teachers of Muktabs and Madrassas in Tripura w.e.f. 1.10.1992. Now, the question which requires examination is whether the petitioners who was serving as fixed pay teachers on 1.10.1992 have been discriminated by the concerned authorities by not extending the benefit of regular scales of pay w.e.f. 1.10.1992, i.e., the date on which some fixed pay teachers of Government Schools as well as Muktabs and Madrassas were given the benefit of regular scales of pay. 4. There may be many fixed pay teachers in Government Schools as well as in Muktabs and Madrassas, who were not serving as such teachers on 1.10.1992 and as such not being given the benefit of regular scales of pay w.e.f. 1.10.1992. 4. There may be many fixed pay teachers in Government Schools as well as in Muktabs and Madrassas, who were not serving as such teachers on 1.10.1992 and as such not being given the benefit of regular scales of pay w.e.f. 1.10.1992. But the petitioners had been serving as fixed pay teachers before 1.10.1992 and as such why should not the benefit of regular scale of pay be extended to them when the said benefit was extended in favour of the fixed pay teachers of Government Schools, Muktabs and Madrassas, serving on 1.10.1992 with effect from the said date, i.e., 1.10.1992. 5. There is no dispute that the said Muktabs and Madrassas are Government aided institutions. When the benefit of regular scales of pay was given to the teachers serving in those aided institutions like Muktabs and Madrassas w.e.f. 1.10.1992, prima facie, giving of said benefit to the petitioners who were serving in the Government aided schools at the relevant time w.e.f. 10.6.1999 only and not from 1.10.1992 is discriminatory. Further, the State Government has a deep and pervade control on the aided Schools. 6. Considering the importance of education and the obligation of the State in respect of education, the Government Schools and Government aided Schools arc required to be treated on parity. The Apex Court has held that the teachers working in aided Schools are entitled to the same salaries and allowances as are being paid to teachers in Government Schools. In this connection, the decisions of the Apex Court in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana (1988) 4 SCC 571 and 1990 (Supp) SCC 306 may be referred to. It is not legally correct to say that teachers in aided Schools are not entitled to parity in the matter of salary, allowances, etc., with their counterparts in Government Schools. I do not find any reason as to why the concerned authorities should not consider the case of the petitioners for extending the benefit of regular scale of pay w.e.f. 1.10.1992. 7. In the counter-affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, it is stated to the effect that since no post of the required grade with regular scale of pay was available in respect of the aided Schools in which the petitioners were serving, the question of granting regular scales of pay did not arise. 7. In the counter-affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, it is stated to the effect that since no post of the required grade with regular scale of pay was available in respect of the aided Schools in which the petitioners were serving, the question of granting regular scales of pay did not arise. According to the State-respondents, persons appointed on fixed pay are given the benefit of regular scales of pay only after creation of equal number of regular posts in regular scales. The Government order dated 10.6.1999, a copy of which is at Annexure-8 to the writ petition, clearly shows that the employees of Muktabs and Madrassas, who have been given the benefit of regular scales of pay, are persons appointed against fixed pay posts sanctioned under different orders. There is nothing to show that the said fixed pay posts were first converted to regular pay scale posts or the required number of regular pay scale posts were created by the concerned authority before giving the said benefit of regular scales of pay to the said employees of Muktabs and Madrassas. The same is the case in respect of the fixed pay teachers of Government Schools in whose favour the benefit of regular scales of pay was given vide Government order dated 1.10.1992. Annexure-7 to the writ petition is a copy of the said Government order dated 1.10.1992 The State-respondents have failed to justify the unequal treatment, given to the petitioners in respect of giving of benefit of regular scale of pay w.e.f. 1.10.1992. 8. Having regard to all the relevant considerations, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the State-respondents shall consider for extending the benefit of regular scales of pay in favour of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.10.1992 and pass an appropriate order in that connection. The said exercise is to be completed within a period of 3(three) months from today. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondents for enabling him to inform the concerned authority for doing the needful. No order as to costs.