Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1972 (BOM)

Ramrao v. State of Maharashtra

2012-10-11

R.M.BORDE, S.S.SHINDE

body2012
JUDGMENT R.M.Borde, J.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioners are primary teachers working in Ashram School having classes from I to VII standards. Petitioners were selected and appointed as Assistant teachers since they possess B.A. B.P.Ed. qualification. Petitioner no.1 came to be appointed with effect from 03.06.1993, whereas, petitioner no.2 came to be appointed with effect from 01.06.1999 and petitioner no.3 came to be appointed with effect from 01.08.1995 in the Primary Ashram School, Mandve Digar, Post Garkheda, Tq.Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. The appointments of the petitioners have been approved by the District Social Welfare Officer, Jalgaon. It is contended by the petitioners that initially they were paid pay scale prescribed for trained Graduate teacher, however, subsequently they have been treated as untrained teachers since they do not possess D.Ed. qualification 3. According to the petitioners, Respondent No.3 has wrongly fixed pay of the petitioners in the pay scale of untrained Graduate teachers from 2000. Petitioners contend that since they are trained Graduate teachers, they are entitled to be paid pay scale prescribed for trained teachers. The scale of pay prescribed for trained teachers is Rs.45007000/-, whereas, petitioners' pay has been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.32004900/ . 4. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Trimbak Choudhari & others, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1321, so also decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Govinda s/o Narayan Gunajal (Writ Petition No.6437/2007 & connected writ petitions, decided on 12.03.2008) as well as decision of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 121/2012 & connected writ petitions, decided on 20.03.2012, petitioners contend that they are entitled to be paid trained primary teacher's pay scale. Petitioners also place reliance on the Resolution issued by the State Government on 11.11.2011, wherein in paragraph (B), it has been prescribed that teachers holding trained graduate qualification are entitled to be paid trained teacher's (D.Ed.) pay scale (Rs.5200 to Rs.20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 2800/-). It is also recorded in the Government Resolution that such of the teachers are entitled to be paid trained primary teacher's pay scale from the date of their appointment. 5. -6. We have perused judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. 2800/-). It is also recorded in the Government Resolution that such of the teachers are entitled to be paid trained primary teacher's pay scale from the date of their appointment. 5. -6. We have perused judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Trimbak Choudhari & others (cited supra), which has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with Writ Petition No.6437/2007. The Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph no.6, while dealing with identical issue, has recorded thus: "6 All the lawyers, together, have drawn our attention to the fact that a Full Bench decision of this High Court in the matter of Smt.Jayashree Sunil Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.", reported in 2000 (3) ALL MR 465 had taken a view t hat requisite qualification for being employed as a primary teacher was D.Ed. and B.Ed. cannot be treated as equivalent thereto. However, subsequently, in the matter of Kondiba s/o Dattatrao Mirashe Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 432 a Division Bench of this Court held that Assistant Teachers possessing the qualification B.A., B.Ed. are trained teachers. The decision of Kondiba Vs. State was carried before Honourable Apex Court in the form of challenge to a judgment of a Division Bench at Bombay in a group of writ petitions following the ratio laid down in the matter of Kondiba, in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Trimbak Chaudhari & Ors., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1321. Honourable the Apex Court, after having considered the Full Bench judgment of this High Court, as also the decision of Division Bench in the matter of Kondiba, has observed, thus, in para 22: "22 As has been pointed out by Mr.Apte, the said Government Resolution does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Full Bench which rendered its decision on the reference made to it on the basis of the Maharashtra Rules of 1981 in respect whereof conflicting views had been taken with regard to the eligibility of a graduate, also holding the B.Ed. degree to be appointed in a primary school. The Resolution of 1979 was dealing with a situation which was prior to the enactment of the said Rules and which contemplated the existence and appointment of graduate teachers in primary schools. degree to be appointed in a primary school. The Resolution of 1979 was dealing with a situation which was prior to the enactment of the said Rules and which contemplated the existence and appointment of graduate teachers in primary schools. 23 The decision rendered in Kondiba's case (supra) is closer to the facts of this case. The High Court, in our view, did not commit any error in following the same upon distinguishing the decision rendered by the Full Bench on account of the said Resolution and the Resolution dated 12th November, 2011 adopted on the basis thereof." 7. Thus, in view of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Tukaram's matter as well as decision of the Division Bench (cited supra), so also Government Resolution dated 11.11.2011, we are of the considered opinion that petitioners are entitled to be paid trained primary teacher's pay scale. 8. Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. Respondents are directed to pay difference of pay admissible to each of the petitioners from the date of their entitlement in terms of the Government Resolution as well as decision of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court cited supra, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from today. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.