Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1213 (ALL)

LALJI SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-05-21

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22/23.10.2003 and the order dated 18.11.2005 whereby it has been held that the petitioner would be entitled for grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 7.3.1990 and the selection Grade from 7.3.2000. 2. There is an Institution by the name of Goswami Tulsidas Krishak Inter College, Koraon, Allahabad (the Institution). The petitioner was appointed in the Institution on the post of Assistant Teacher on 26.7.1974 and his appointment was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad (the DIOS) by letter dated 21.3.1975. His case further is that at the time of appointment he was intermediate and also had BTC training. He passed the B.A. examination in the year 1976 and M.A. in 1979 in Sociology and Economics subjects. It is further stated that in terms of the G.O. dated 19.10.1989 and 2.12.1989 he was allowed L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.986 on completion of 10 years satisfactory service including 5 years of continuous service in C.T. Grade. 3. His case is that in terms of the G.O. dated 20.12.2001 he was entitled for grant of selection grade on completion of 10 years of satisfactory service in L.T. Grade. A proposal for granting him the Selection Grade was forwarded to the DIOS and it is only thereafter that the impugned orders were passed holding that the petitioner was wrongly given the L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and therefore, the salary, which has wrongly been paid to him, is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. 4. I have heard Shri Satish Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. As per the office report dated 15.4.2006 regarding service on respondent No. 4 neither acknowledgement nor un-served notice has been received back. In the circumstances notice on respondent No. 4 shall be deemed to be sufficient. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4 although list has been revised. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the G.O. dated 19.10.1989 as clarified by the G.O. dated 2.12.1989 the petitioner has rightly been given the L.T. Grade on completion of 10 years of service w.e.f. 1.1.1986. According to the petitioner the G.Os. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the G.O. dated 19.10.1989 as clarified by the G.O. dated 2.12.1989 the petitioner has rightly been given the L.T. Grade on completion of 10 years of service w.e.f. 1.1.1986. According to the petitioner the G.Os. read together make no distinction so far as service on the post of Assistant Teacher is concerned, the only requirement is that for eligibility for the grant of L.T. Grade, a Teacher must have taught in the C.T. Grade for at least 5 years. This eligibility i.e. qualification of 5 years in C.T. Grade has been fulfilled by the petitioner as he was promoted to the C.T. Grade w.e.f. 7.3.1980 and his promotion was also approved by the DIOS by his order dated 24.4.1982. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of the Court to a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.4.2004 in writ petition No. 9704 of 1999 wherein the controversy was absolutely identical and the two G.Os. dated 19.10.1989 and 2.12.1989 were considered in detail by this Court. It was held therein that the said G.Os. do not specify the number of years in different Grades, it simply extends the benefit of L.T. Grade on completion of 10 years of satisfactory service. The Court further proceeded to interpret the G.O. dated 2.12.1989 and held that a new category of C.T. Grade has also been extended the same benefit as granted to those under the G.O. dated 19.10.1989. The G.O. dated 2.12.1989 spells out that trained graduate teacher who have completed five years of satisfactory service in C.T. Grade and also completed 10 years over all service as Teacher would be entitled the benefit of L.T. Grade. The G.Os. read together nowhere lay down that service prior to entry into the C.T. Grade would not count for the purposes of L.T. Grade if all other conditions are otherwise fulfilled. 7. The facts regarding the date of appointment of the petitioner and grant of C.T. Grade as well as grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 have not been disputed by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. 7. The facts regarding the date of appointment of the petitioner and grant of C.T. Grade as well as grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 have not been disputed by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. They have also, it appears from the reading of paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit which is in reply to paragraph 25 of the writ petition, stated that the judgment of the Court would be respected and duly complied with as in the writ petition No. 9704 of 1999 dated 22.4.2004. 8. It has not been brought to the notice of the Court that any special appeal was filed against the said order and whether the said judgment and order has been set aside in any special appeal. Therefore, it appears that the said judgment has become final. 9. Having given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the judgment dated 22.4.2004 I find that the facts regarding the appointment of the petitioner and the promotion to C.T. Grade as well as L.T. Grade are not in dispute and that the petitioner, therefore, is entitled to the benefit of the judgment of this Court dated 22.4.2004. 10. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 22/23.10.2005 and 18.11.2005 are quashed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be treated to have acquired the benefit of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986and further he will also be entitled for the grant of Selection Grade on completion of 10 years satisfactory service w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The petitioner will also be entitled to the difference of arrears of salary of the post of L.T. Grade as well as difference of arrears of salary of the Selection Grade. 11. So far as the grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Selection Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1996 is concerned, the respondents shall complete the exercise in that regard within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by them. 12. There shall be no order as to cost. ———————