JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The three petitioners, Smt. Shail Kapoor, Smt. Usha Mehrotra and Kiran Tandon claim arrears of C.T. Grade, absorption in L.T. Grade due to declaration of C.T. Grade a dying cadre and assignment of seniority in L.T. Grade in accordance with relevant Government orders issued from time to time. Their representation and claim has been rejected by District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “DIOS”) vide impugned order dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition), hence this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.8.2008 and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the aforesaid relief which has been declined by DIOS. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute may be placed, in brief, as under : 4. Shiv Charan Das Kanhaiya Lal Intermediate College, Attarsuiya, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “College”) is an educational institution imparting education upto Intermediate and is recognised by Board of High Schools and Intermediate, U.P., Allahabad under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1921”). It is an aided institution. Admittedly, the College is governed by provisions of Act, 1921, U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1971) and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1982”). The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher (BTC) in primary Section attached with the College on 8.7.1975, 8.7.1974 and 9.7.1986 respectively. The qualifications possessed by petitioners are M.A. B.Ed., M.A. B.T.C. and M.A. L.T. respectively. The College had ten sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade and 10 of Assistant Teacher C.T. Grade. A dispute arose about entitlement of petitioners for grant of C.T. Grade and became subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 34210 of 1995. A Single Judge decided the writ petition vide judgment dated 17.9.1997 holding as under: “The petitioners are entitled to C.T. Grade by virtue of Regulation 7(2) on completion of five years of service. A dispute arose about entitlement of petitioners for grant of C.T. Grade and became subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 34210 of 1995. A Single Judge decided the writ petition vide judgment dated 17.9.1997 holding as under: “The petitioners are entitled to C.T. Grade by virtue of Regulation 7(2) on completion of five years of service. In this manner, petitioners 1, 2 and 3 had completed their five years of service, in B.T.C. Grade prior to the government order dated 19-8-1992 consequently they are entitled to C.T. Grade under Regulation 7(2) aforesaid. The writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 viz. Smt. Shail Kapoor, Smt. Usha Mehrotra, and Km. Kiran Tandon are entitled to C.T. Grade under regulation 7(2) Chapter II of the Regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1991 on completion of their five years of service to be reckoned from the date of their respective appointment. The respondents are commended to pay the salary to the aforesaid three petitioners with arrears as admissible to C.T. Grade teachers.” 5. The matter was taken in intra-Court appeal vide Special Appeal No. 475 of 1999. The Division Bench decided the matter vide judgment dated 4.8.1999 confirming the judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge and held as under: “So far as order of the learned Single Judge which is under challenge in appeal is concerned we find there is no illegality in the same. The respondents are entitled to C.T. Grade under Regulation 7(2) chapter-II of the Regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Though the said Regulation 7(2) was omitted by order dated 19th August, 1992 it was held in the case of Smt. Arna Ghosh v. State of U.P. and others, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 763 that the government order dated 19.8.1992 omitting Regulation 7(2) of the Regulations, chapter II framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 will not effect the right already acquired as it had no retrospective operation. Admittedly respondents 1, 2 and 3 had completed their five years of service in B.T.C. Grade prior to the government order dated 19.8.1992 and as such the learned Single Judge has rightly held that they are entitled to C.T. Grade under Regulation 7(2). Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. 6. Admittedly respondents 1, 2 and 3 had completed their five years of service in B.T.C. Grade prior to the government order dated 19.8.1992 and as such the learned Single Judge has rightly held that they are entitled to C.T. Grade under Regulation 7(2). Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. 6. The matter was taken up further before Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5989 of 2000. The Court vide judgment dated 30.3.2006 dismissed the appeal qua the present petitioners but left the question of law, if any, open. The judgment of Apex Court reads as under: “When this matter was called, on learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners produced a copy of the circular letter dated 24.5.2004, wherein the following directions have been issued: “2. As stated above, the salary of all the teachers of C.T. Category working in Non-Government aided Higher Secondary Schools who have been merged in the L.T. Category, will be determined in general grade in accordance with the directions given under financial Rules Vol-II part-2 of Original Rule-22 of the Rules determining the salary. These teachers will have a right to opt for the same under Rule 23(1). 3. All the other conditions and prohibitions regarding the merger of teachers of C.T. Grade into L.T. Grade working in Non Government Aided Higher Secondary Schools mentioned in all the earlier Government Orders and notification No. UO-83/15-7-97-3073/96 dated 18.12.1997 issued by the Education Division-7 will remain the same. 4. Above order is being issued in accordance with the approval granted in letter No. Non Government No. UO-PC-2 496-10-2004 dated 22.5.2004 of Division 2 of the Finance (Pay commission). In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the present appeal does not survive as against the respondents. However, having regard to the statements made at the Bar by Mr. Qadri, learned counsel appearing for the state, that several writ petitions, invoking similar question, are pending before the Allahabad High Court. We may observe that the question of law, if any, shall remain open. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.” 7. Therefore, the directions issued by this Court qua these petitioners attained finality and merged with ultimate Government Order dated 24.5.2004 whereby the C.T. Grade teachers were directed to be merged with L.T. Grade after exercising an option under Rule 23(1). 8. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.” 7. Therefore, the directions issued by this Court qua these petitioners attained finality and merged with ultimate Government Order dated 24.5.2004 whereby the C.T. Grade teachers were directed to be merged with L.T. Grade after exercising an option under Rule 23(1). 8. The respondents, however, did not take any consequential steps despite representation made by petitioners on 22.11.2006 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). Later on DIOS issued order dated 4.12.2006 fixing salary of petitioners in C.T. Grade w.e.f. 8.7.1981, 1.7.1989 and 9.7.1991 respectively. Having done so, the petitioners claim their merger in L.T. Grade pursuant to Government Order dated 24.5.2004 referred to by Apex Court in its judgment dated 30.3.2006 and made representation dated 9.3.2007 for fixing their salary and seniority in L.T. Grade. 9. Having failed to receive any response, petitioners came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 38604 of 2007 which was disposed of vide judgement dated 21.8.2007 directing the DIOS to decide petitioners’ representation dated 9.3.2007 within four months considering their claim on merits and with speaking order. It is pursuant to this judgment the impugned order has been passed by DIOS. He has observed that benefit of Government order is available to only such Assistant Teachers who were appointed in L.T. Grade in Junior High School Section of secondary colleges and not in attached primary Sections. He has held that petitioners have not been given promotion in C.T. Grade but have been allowed fixation of salary in C.T. Grade on completion of five years of service as directed by this Court and, therefore, they are not entitled for merger in L.T. Grade but may be considered for promotion against 25% quota under Rule 7(2) as and when vacancies are available and not otherwise. 10. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 sworn by Sri Dinesh Singh holding the office of DIOS at the relevant time. It says that earlier resolution of management for promotion of three teachers (the petitioners) was not valid since for claiming 50% promotion quota only those teachers are eligible who are working in C.T. Grade at secondary level while petitioners were appointed in BTC grade in attached primary Section hence could not be promoted in L.T. Grade. So far as arrears of salary is concerned, it is said that the same has been determined to the tune of Rs. So far as arrears of salary is concerned, it is said that the same has been determined to the tune of Rs. 3,73,856-65, 2,36,451-75 and 1,70,354-65 respectively and release of funds has been requested from Joint Director of Education, Allahabad vide letter dated 23.7.2007 but the same has not been made available. 11. Learned Standing Counsel said that as soon as the funds are available, payment shall be made. It is also said that later on the management realising true legal position resolved to promote petitioner No. 1 in L.T. Grade under 25% quota and the matter was referred to Joint Director of Education vide DIOS letter dated 20.8.2008. This promotion was proposed against a vacancy caused due to promotion of one Sri Pravindra Narain Tripathi on the post of Lecturer. It is reiterated that under Regulation 7(1) and (2) only those C.T. Grade teachers are entitled promotion against vacant L.T. Grade post under 50% quota who have completed five years of service in L.T. Grade in secondary Section in the College and not in primary Section. The teachers appointed in primary Section are entitled to promotion in L.T. Grade under the provisions of Government Order dated 17.2.2003 against 25% quota meant for such teachers and not beyond that. 12. Two supplementary affidavits have been filed by petitioners placing on record various Government orders issued from time to time and they have also filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating what they have stated in the writ petition. I may refer these pleadings while discussing matter further. 13. Regulation 7, Chapter-II before its amendment in 1992, read as under: “7. (1) Every vacancy in the post of teachers in the C.T. grade or in the J.T.C./B.T.C. grade shall except as provided in clause (2) be filled by direct recruitment. (2) Where in an institution any teacher working in the J.T.C./B.T.C. grade has passed Intermediate or an equivalent examination or is a trained graduate and has completed five years’ service in that grade he shall be promoted in the C.T. grade by the Committee of Management and information of such promotion shall be immediately conveyed to the Inspector. (2) Where in an institution any teacher working in the J.T.C./B.T.C. grade has passed Intermediate or an equivalent examination or is a trained graduate and has completed five years’ service in that grade he shall be promoted in the C.T. grade by the Committee of Management and information of such promotion shall be immediately conveyed to the Inspector. (3) If the Inspector has reason to believe that any promotion under clause (2) has been made in contravention of the Act and the regulation then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken in this behalf, he may refer the case to the Director whose decision in the matter shall be final.” 14. The application of Regulation 7 in respect to teachers appointed in attached primary Section and those appointed in Junior High School Section came to be considered before this Court in Smt. Samantika Chatterjee v. Regional Inspectress of Girl’s School, Allahabad and others, 1990(1) UPLBEC 239. The Division Bench referred to D.O. letter dated 25.1.1974 observed: “On the plain reading of this D.O. it is clear that it applied to all the teachers who were working in a recognised High School or Intermediate College in the pay scale of BTC or JTC. It made no exception in the case of those teachers who were employer in the primary Section of a recognised High School or Intermediate College. Again it did not made any distinction in the case of those teachers were were teaching neither classes XI and XII nor classes IX or X nor Class VIII. In other words it was applicable even in case of those teachers who were teaching classes VI, VII and VIII and class VI in particular. To put it differently, the D.O. gave the benefit of the automatic promotion to all teachers who fulfilled the conditions laid down irrespective of the class they were assigned to teach.” 15. Having said so, the Court found that D.O. letter dated 4.10.1974 issued by Director of Education was not consistent with Government order and makes a distinction between teachers vis-a-vis the class to which they were imparting education and held that this distinction has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved but arbitrary. Having said so, the Court found that D.O. letter dated 4.10.1974 issued by Director of Education was not consistent with Government order and makes a distinction between teachers vis-a-vis the class to which they were imparting education and held that this distinction has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved but arbitrary. Para 11 of the judgment reads as under: “There appears to be no rational basis for segregating female teachers employed for imparting education in the primary Section of a girls’ institution. Such a classification has no nexus with the object of the order dated 25th January, 1974. The object being to promote automatically all teachers working in the J.T.C. or B.T.C. pay scale to the C.T. Grade.” 16. The Court further held in para 12 as under: “It is an admitted position that classes I to V are comprised in the primary Section. Classes VI, VII and VIII and Class VI in particular, can be no stretch of imagination be considered to be an integral part of a recognised Higher Secondary Schools or Intermediate College.” 17. In respect to the petitioners this Court had already decided vide judgement dated 17.9.1997 that before deletion of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 7 vide Government Order dated 19.8.1992 all of them have completed five years of service in BTC Grade were entitled to C.T. Grade by virtue of Regulation 7(2) as it stood on the date when they complete five years service in BTC/JTC Grade and, therefore, were entitled for C.T. Grade immediately on completion of five years of service. This decision having attained finality up to the Apex Court and the same was given effect to by educational authorities inasmuch as petitioners were given C.T. Grade w.e.f. 8.7.1981, 1.7.1989 and 9.7.1991 respectively, the further question whether they were imparting education in primary Section only or not and would be entitled to C.T. Grade, to my mind becomes redundant. 18. The Regulation 7(2) as stood upto 18.8.1992 talked of promotion and not mere grant of pay scale in C.T. Grade. It provides that a teacher who has completed five years of service in J.T.C. or B.T.C. satisfactorily would be promoted by management in C.T. Grade and it shall be informed to DIOS. This Court held the entitlement of petitioners in C.T. Grade under Regulation 7(2) as it stood before its omission vide Government Order dated 19.8.1992. It provides that a teacher who has completed five years of service in J.T.C. or B.T.C. satisfactorily would be promoted by management in C.T. Grade and it shall be informed to DIOS. This Court held the entitlement of petitioners in C.T. Grade under Regulation 7(2) as it stood before its omission vide Government Order dated 19.8.1992. The DIOS in attempting to distort the logical consequence flowing to petitioners in view of aforesaid judgement has not only misread the documents but has tried to twist the facts to a situation which has already been negatived by this Court. 19. Now I come to other Government orders issued from time to time later on. 20. The Government Order dated 3.6.1989, while receiving pay scales of teachers of recognised aided educational institutions vis-a-vis teachers working in C.T. Grade in secondary schools, provided that those who have completed 10 years satisfactory service shall be given L.T. Grade as is evident from the following: ^^¼9½ ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds lh0Vh0 xzsM ds ,sls v/;kid dks izf’kf{kr Lukrd gksa 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 mi;qZDr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj ,y0Vh0xzsM esa fd;k tk;sxkA ,y0Vh0 xzsM esa tkus okys ,sls lh0Vh0 xzsM ds f’k{kd osru fu/kkZj.k dh frfFk dks pkgs lh0Vh0 xzsM ds lk/kkj.k osrueku esa dk;Zjr jgs gksa ;k lsysD’ku xzsM esa] mudk osru fu/kkZj.k ,y0Vh0 xzsM ds lk/kkj.k osrueku esa fd;k tk;sxkA** 21. vide Government Order No. 3299/15-7/89-11(1361)/89 Shiksha Anubhag dated 7 dated 11.8.1989 C.T. Grade was declared a dying cadre. It said that neither any post of Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) shall be created nor any appointment shall be made. The teachers working in C.T. Grade in secondary schools having training qualification, i.e., L.T./ B.Ed and completed 10 years satisfactory service shall be given L.T. Grade and their salary shall be fixed in L.T. Grade (ordinary). 22. Similar declaration was made in respect to Government High Secondary Schools/Inter Colleges vide Government Order dated 19.2.1991 with which as such I am not concerned since it has no application to the College in question. 23. vide Government Order dated 9.1.1992 the Assistant Teachers (C.T. Grade) in Government Secondary Schools were sought to be absorbed in L.T. Grade. 22. Similar declaration was made in respect to Government High Secondary Schools/Inter Colleges vide Government Order dated 19.2.1991 with which as such I am not concerned since it has no application to the College in question. 23. vide Government Order dated 9.1.1992 the Assistant Teachers (C.T. Grade) in Government Secondary Schools were sought to be absorbed in L.T. Grade. It was however, clarified therein that service rendered by C.T. Grade teachers in B.T.C., J.T.C. and H.T.C. Grade shall be counted for and future vacancies in C.T. Grade shall be treated to have occurred in L.T. Grade. This is also not relevant for this case. 24. vide Government Order dated 18.12.1997 Regulation 6 (1) was amended by substitution and amended provision reads as under: ^^6 ¼1½ tgkWa fofu;e 5 ds v/khu ;Fkk vo/kkfjr izoDrk Js.kh esa ;k ,y0Vh0 Js.kh esa dksbZ fjfDr inksUufr }kjk Hkjh tkuh gks] ogkWa ;FkkfLFkfr ,y0Vh0;k lh0Vh0 Js.kh esa dk;Zjr ,sls lHkh v/;kidksa ds lEcU/k esa ftudh mDr fjfDr gksus ds fnukad dks U;wure ikWap o"kZ dh yxkrkj ekSfyd lsok gks] izcU/k lfefr }kjk inksUufr ds fy;s mlds fufeRr muds vkosnu fd;s fcuk gh fopkj fd;k tk;sxk] izfrcU/k ;g gS fd os ml fo"k; esa ftlesa izoDrk Js.kh esa ,y0Vh0 Js.kh esa v/;kid dh vko’;drk gks] v/;kiu ds fy, fofgr U;wure vgZrk j[krs gksaA ijUrq lh0Vh0 xzsM ds ,sls v/;kid tks izf’kf{kr Lukrd gSa vkSj 1-1-86 ds iwoZ 10 o"kZ dh lUrks"ktud lsok iwjh dj pqds gks ;k ml frfFk ds ckn ftl frfFk dks 10 o"kZ dh lUrks"ktud lsok iwjh dj ysrs gSa] 1-1-86 ls ;k mlds ckn lh0Vh0 xzsM esa 10 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh djus dh frfFk ls tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] ,y0Vh0 xzsM esa lafoyhu le>s tk;saxs vkSj lafofy;u dh mDr frfFk ls os ,y0Vh0xzsM esa ekSfyd :i ls fu;qDr ekus tk;saxsA** (emphasis added) 25. Regulation 6(1) makes it very clear that such C.T. Grade teachers who are trained graduates and completed 10 years of service prior to 1.1.1986 or thereafter, on the date they so complete 10 years satisfactory service, shall be deemed to have been absorbed in L.T. Grade and shall be treated to be substantively appointed in L.T. Grade from the date of such absorption. 26. Some confusion arose in this regard which was clarified by Director of Education vide order dated 16.1.2002 that on such absorption and deeming substantive appointment, incumbent would be entitled for seniority and other benefits. 26. Some confusion arose in this regard which was clarified by Director of Education vide order dated 16.1.2002 that on such absorption and deeming substantive appointment, incumbent would be entitled for seniority and other benefits. 27. There is one more aspect of the matter which may also be referred. 28. As already stated in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner’s No. 1 case was referred for promotion in L.T. Grade against 25% quota under Regulation 7(2) as amended in 2003. The Regional Level Committee accepted the proposal and approved promotion of petitioner No. 1 vide its order dated 11.8.2009 which was communicated by DIOS vide letter dated 24.8.2009 and pursuant thereto the management of College has promoted petitioner No. 1 as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade vide order dated 25.8.2009 which has been accepted by petitioner No. 1 under protect vide letter dated 27.8.2009. The assumption on the part of DIOS that for claiming absorption in L.T. Grade if a teacher was initially appointed in a primary Section attached to an intermediate College in B.T.C. Grade then would not be entitled for benefit of relevant Government Orders, is wholly misconceived and contrary to decision of this Court as already discussed above. 29. Apparently the petitioners having been allowed the benefit of Regulation 7(2) as it stood prior to its omission vide Government Order dated 19.8.1992, for the purpose of grant of scale in L.T. Grade, in my view, are entitled to claim benefit under the Government Order dated 3.6.1989 and on completion of 10 years satisfactory service petitioners are entitled for grant of L.T. Grade. 30. Referring to Clause 9 of para 3 of Government Order dated 3.6.1989 this Court in Laxmi Narain Gangwar and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(9) ADJ 635 in para 32 said: “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.” 31. The same thing has been reiterated by referring to the Director of Education’s letter dated 19.10.1989 in paras 36 and 38 of the judgement. The same thing has been reiterated by referring to the Director of Education’s letter dated 19.10.1989 in paras 36 and 38 of the judgement. The Court emphasising its conclusion in para 39 said: “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-noted paragraph 12.” 32. The DIOS, in order to deny L.T. Grade to petitioners, by observing that they will be entitled to be considered against 25% quota as provided in Regulation 7(2) as amended in 2003, has erred in law by ignoring that much before such amendment of Regulation 7(2), the petitioners have accrued their right for claiming L.T. Grade and to get absorbed therein. The subsequent amendement would not divest the rights vested in the petitioners. 33. However, since the question of satisfactory service has to be decided by Management, I am refraining myself from making a declaration regarding entitlement of petitioners in L.T. Grade on their completion of 10 years satisfactory service in C.T. Grade in the light of decisions of this Court in Smt. Samantika Chatterjee (supra), Aruna Ghosh v. State of U.O. and others, 1995(3) ESC 92 and Laxmi Narain Gangwar and another (supra) and direct the respondents to consider the matter and take a final decision within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and if find the service rendered by petitioners satisfactory, to grant all consequential benefits to petitioners by making payment of arrears of salary after deciding the date of grant of L.T. Grade and thereafter any further grade, if any, in accordance with law which the petitioners shall be provided/paid within two months thereafter. 34. So far as the payment of arrears of salary to petitioners as a result of grant of C.T. Grade vide order of DIOS dated 4.12.2006 w.e.f. 8.7.1981, 1.7.1989 and 9.7.1991 respectively, it has already been admitted by respondent No. 3 that the amount of arrears has been computed but for non-availability of funds payments were not made, for which a letter is said to have been sent to Joint Director of Education. This situation is also dis-satisfactory and cannot be appreciated. This situation is also dis-satisfactory and cannot be appreciated. If a person has been found entitled for payment of certain amount, it cannot be deferred and allowed to wait for an indefinite period. The matter was finalised as long back as on 30.3.2006 by the Apex Court. Despite thereof such a huge delay has occurred for no fault of petitioners. It is solely on account of Act or omission on the part of educational authorities. Obviously, they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to pay arrears of salary to petitioners in respect to their appointment in C.T. Grade pursuant to DIOS dated 4.12.2006 w.e.f. 8.7.1981, 1.7.1989 and 9.7.1991 respectively, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order alongwith interest at the rate of 10% which could commence from the date of filing of this writ petition till the date of payment. 35. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.8.2008 is hereby quashed. 36. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and lapses as well as default on the part of respondents as discussed above, the petitioners are also entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs. 24,000/-. It shall also be paid to petitioners alongwith arrears of salary as directed above. —————