Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 349 (GAU)

STATE OF ASSAM v. SHEULY LASKAR

2017-03-20

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. Heard on admission. 2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 20.3.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has allowed respondent’s WP(C) 3859/2010. 3. By order dated 19.6.1995, the appellant was appointed as Stipendiary Teacher on a monthly stipend of Rs.900/-. One of the terms and conditions of appointment was that she would be allowed the time scale of pay after successful completion of the Assam Junior Basic Training. And for some unknown reason, respondent authorities never sent the appellant for training, although many other similarly situated teachers, were deputed for it. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar, however, vide order dated 14.2.2001 allowed the appellant to draw the time scale of pay of Rs.3,130-6,600/- per month with other allowances from January, 2001. But happiness of the appellant was short-lived as the time scale of pay extended to her was withdrawn with effect from November, 2003 and the same was replaced by monthly stipend of Rs.1,800/- on the ground that she did not complete the Assam Junior Basic Training. 4. The appellant admittedly had never refused to undergo the training. She also, on her own, underwent training of similar nature, namely, the Certificate Course in Primary Education organized by the Indira Gandhi National Open University and successfully completed the same with an overall grade point of 3.66 and Grade B, which is categorized as very good qualitative level. Interestingly, the State Government also issued a notification dated 11.4.2003 declaring teachers, who had worked as Teachers against sanctioned posts for at least 10 years and had completed Certificate Course in Primary Education conducted by Indira Gandhi National Open University in “Distance Mode” as “Trained Teachers”. 5. The appellant, therefore, aggrieved with the abrupt withdrawal of her time scale of pay, filed WP(C) 3859/2010, which the learned Single Judge has allowed by the impugned order. It is in this background, the appellant- State has filed the present appeal. 6. Nothing was placed before the learned Single Judge that respondent ever refused to undergo the training, in question. The appellant, therefore, having denied the respondent an opportunity to undergo such training, could not use this deficiency on her part as the ground for rejection of the claim for time pay scale to her. 6. Nothing was placed before the learned Single Judge that respondent ever refused to undergo the training, in question. The appellant, therefore, having denied the respondent an opportunity to undergo such training, could not use this deficiency on her part as the ground for rejection of the claim for time pay scale to her. Not only this, the respondent on her own had already completed the Certificate Course in Primary Education under Indira Gandhi National Open University and as per notification dated 11.4.2003 of the State, respondent stands declared as “Trained Teacher”. Thus, the respondent having been declared as “Trained Teacher” by operation of notification dated 11.4.2003, there is no need for a separate notification/circular to declare again that Stipendiary Teacher such as respondent shall be entitled to receive regular time scale of pay. For these reasons, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the action of Appellant No.2 in withdrawing the time scale of pay allowed to her as perverse and arbitrary. Appellant No.2 as directed by the learned Single Judge shall now immediately pay the salary and allowances to the respondent on the basis of time scale of pay admissible to her with effect from November, 2003. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.