Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 818 (UTT)

NANDAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-12-20

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Since both the writ petitions are interconnected, therefore, with the consent of both the parties, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Since in both the writ petitions identical question of law is involved, therefore, for adjudication of lis, facts of WPSS No. 724 of 2013 are taken up for consideration. 3. Undisputedly, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher CT Grade on 30.06.1989 and on completion of 10 years of continuous service, petitioner was awarded selection grade with effect from 30.06.1999. Vide order dated 11.10.2006 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) petitioner was granted temporary promotion on the post of Lecturer in the pay scale of ‘ 6500 – 10500 and was transferred from Government Inter College, Nainital to Government Inter College, Chamtola, Almora. Petitioner did not accept the temporary promotion, so offered vide order dated 11.10.2006 (Annexure No. 3 to the petition). Vide order dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) petitioner was once again granted temporary promotion on the post of Lecturer and was transferred from Government Inter College, Nainital to Government Inter College, Bhidapani, Nainital. However, again petitioner did not accept the second temporary promotion order too. 4. Petitioner, pursuant to the Government Order dated 12.07.2002 on completion of 12 years of service on the Selection Grade, raised claim regarding payment of promotional pay scale, which was denied by the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred writ petition no. 184 (SS) of 2013, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2013 directing the respondents to treat the writ petition as representation and to take decision thereon within six weeks. 5. Vide impugned order dated 04.05.2013 claim of the petitioner for payment of promotional pay scale was declined on the ground that since petitioner had refused to accept the promotion twice offered to him, therefore, as per Clause 4 of the Government Order dated 12.07.2002, petitioner is not entitled for promotional pay scale. 6. I have heard Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the pettioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and have carefully perused the record. 7. 6. I have heard Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the pettioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and have carefully perused the record. 7. As per Clause 1 of the Government Order dated 12.07.2002, on completion of 10 years satisfactory continuous service on the post of Assistant Teacher/Lecturer, Assistant Teacher/Lecturer shall be granted Selection Grade and on completion of 12 years continuous satisfactory service, after getting selection grade, he shall be paid promotional pay scale. However, Clause 4 stipulates that Selection Grade/promotional pay scale shall be payable only when promotion is not granted. However, if promotion is offered and not accepted by the Assistant Teacher/Lecturer, then selection grade or promotional pay scale shall not be payable. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the State vehemently argued that since promotions were offered twice to the petitioner vide orders dated 11.10.2006 and 25.08.2012 and he failed to give his joining on the promotional post, so offered to him, therefore, petitioner is not legally entitled for promotional pay scale. 9. It seems that Government Order dated 12.07.2002 was issued keeping in mind that those Teachers / Lecturers, who could not be promoted for no fault of them, shall be granted selection grade and promotional pay scale after completion of 10 years and 12 years of service, as the case may be, so that such teachers may not suffer financial loss for no fault of them. Intention of the Government seems to be to grant equal opportunity of promotion or promotional pay scale to all the Teachers/Lecturers. In the humble opinion of this Court grant of permanent promotion to a teacher means such teacher would be getting higher pay scale payable on the promotional post for all time to come. However, grant of temporary promotion means higher pay scale for such temporary period teacher is allowed to work temporarily on the promotional post. Therefore, temporary promotion cannot be equated with permanent promotion. In the further opinion of this Court word “promotion” as mentioned in Clause 4 of the Government Order, should be understood to means permanent promotion. Offering temporary promotion and refusal thereof shall not debar the petitioners from getting benefit of Government Order. 10. Therefore, temporary promotion cannot be equated with permanent promotion. In the further opinion of this Court word “promotion” as mentioned in Clause 4 of the Government Order, should be understood to means permanent promotion. Offering temporary promotion and refusal thereof shall not debar the petitioners from getting benefit of Government Order. 10. Since admittedly, petitioners were never offered permanent promotion and they never refused to accept permanent promotion, therefore, petitioners are legally entitled for promotional pay scale in view of the fact that petitioners have completed 12 years of satisfactory service after getting selection grade. Consequently, both writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders dated 04.05.2013 and 12.06.2010 are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to award promotional pay scale to the petitioners on completion of 12 years of continuous satisfactory service after getting selection grade. All the arrears shall be paid to the petitioners within next six weeks. If arrears are not paid within next six months, respondents shall also pay interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of passing of this judgment till actual payment is made to the petitioners.