Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1128 (HP)

Shiv Dev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2010-09-20

RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge.Petitioner was appointed as Drawing Teacher in the respondent-Department on 4.10.1973. He was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on 11.10.1996 in Government Middle School, Khagna, Tehsil Chopal. He was also granted two increments over and above his existing pay after he was posted as Trained Graduate Teacher. Respondent-State has issued Annexure A-1 whereby it has been decided to award two special increments to the Classical and Vernacular Teachers, who had completed 20 years of regular service in the respective cadre. Text of letter dated 18.6.1999 reads thus:“I am directed to refer to your letter No. Shiksha-HIM (III) B (6)/89-C&V dated 9thMarch, 1999 on the subject noted above and to say that the matter with regard to the awarding of two special increments to the Classical and Vernacular teachers working in various Educational Institutions, since they do not have any promotion avenues even after rendering twenty years of regular service was under consideration of the Government. Now after due consideration, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order the award of two special increments to those Classical and Vernacular Teachers who have completed 20 years of their regular service as such in their respective cadres w.e.f. 1.4.1999. The criteria and other conditions for awarding these increments should be the same as is followed in the case of awarding higher pay scale/increments under the Assured Career Progression Scheme notified by the Government. 2. The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is further pleased to order that these two special increments shall be set off against the Assured Career Progressions Scheme. 3. This issue with the prior concurrence of the Finance Department obtained vide Financial Commissioner (Finance) office Dy. No. 3072 dated 2.6.1999.”2. Mr. P.P. Chauhan has strenuously argued that since his client had already completed 20 years of service in the cadre of Classical and Vernacular on 4.10.1993, his client is entitled to two special increments even though his client has been promoted as Trained Graduate Teacher on 11.10.1996. According to him, the cut off date, i.e. 1.4.1999 is arbitrary and has no rationale with the objective sought to be achieved. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General have strenuously argued that since the petitioner has ceased to be Drawing Teacher after his promotion as Trained Graduate Teacher on 11.10.1996, letter, Annexure A-1, is not applicable to him. 4. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General have strenuously argued that since the petitioner has ceased to be Drawing Teacher after his promotion as Trained Graduate Teacher on 11.10.1996, letter, Annexure A-1, is not applicable to him. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was appointed as Drawing Teacher on 4.10.1973 and he had completed 20 years of regular service on 4.10.1993. He improved his qualification on the basis of which he was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on 11.10.1996. He was given the benefit of FR 22 (c). Once he has been appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on 11.10.1996, he ceased to be in the cadre of Classical and Vernacular Teachers. The benefit of two special increments could only be granted to those persons, who were working as Classical and Vernacular Teachers as on 1.4.1999. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to two special increments after his appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher on 11.10.1996. The purpose and object of issuing Annexure A-1 was to reduce stagnation in the cadre of Classical and Vernacular Teachers since there were no avenues for further promotion even after putting in 20 years of regular service. In the instant case, the petitioner has already been promoted as Trained Graduate Teacher on 11.10.1996 and has ceased to be in the cadre of Classical and Vernacular Teachers. Only those Classical and Vernacular Teachers, who had put in 20 years of regular service on 1.4.1999, are entitled to the benefit of two special increments. 6. Mr. P.P. Chauhan has strenuously argued that similarly situate persons have been granted the benefit of two special increments. It has come in the reply that since the persons, whose reference has been given in the petition, were still working as Classical and Vernacular Teachers, they have rightly been granted two special increments. There is rationale of prescribing the cut-off date, i.e. 1.4.1999 to remove the stagnation which is prevailing in the cadre of Classical and Vernacular Teachers even after a period of 20 years by granting this category two special increments. 7. There is rationale of prescribing the cut-off date, i.e. 1.4.1999 to remove the stagnation which is prevailing in the cadre of Classical and Vernacular Teachers even after a period of 20 years by granting this category two special increments. 7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others versus N. Subbarayudu and others, (2008) 14 SCC 702 have held that cut-off date is an executive function based on several factors like economic conditions, financial constraints, administrative and other circumstances. Their Lordships also held that rigidity of “D.S. Nakara’s” case has considerably been watered down and their Lordships have further held that even if no reason is forthcoming from executive for fixation of a particular date, it should not be interfered by court unless cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result. Their Lordships have held as under:“5. In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. (See State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 754).6. No doubt in D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India 1983(1) SCC 305 this Court had struck down the cut off date in connection with the demand of pension. However, in subsequent decisions this Court has considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara’s Case (supra), as observed in para 29 of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. (supra).7. There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut off date has been fixed. These considerations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. The Court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection. 8. These considerations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. The Court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection. 8. In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter affidavit filed by the Government, (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical) vide State of Bihar vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368, Union of Indian & Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal 1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5), Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76 (vide para 31), University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996(10) SCC 536, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.”8. Accordingly, the cut-off date, i.e. 1.4.1999 fixed/prescribed by the respondent-State is neither arbitrary/ irrational nor unreasonable. 9. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.