Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1413 (GAU)

Basanta Kr Baruah v. State of Assam

2018-09-21

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department as well as Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on a regular basis as an Assistant Teacher (Intermediate) in the Panitola High School in the scale of pay of Rs. 525-990 per month plus other allowances. The said appointment was made as per order dated 14.10.1988 of the Inspector of School, Dibrugarh and upon being selected by the District Level Selection Board, Dibrugarh. By an order dated 13.03.1996 of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam and pursuant to the Government Letter No.PMA/92/116 dated 10.01.1996, 82 Nos. of High Schools were upgraded to Higher Secondary School and in the process, the required posts were created. The Panitola High School in which the petitioner was initially appointed was also so upgraded to Panitola Higher Secondary School. Upon the upgradation of the school, by an order dated 25.03.1996 of the Director, certain posts, including the post of subject teacher in political science of Panitola High Schools were upgraded and in the said upgradation order the name of the petitioner appears against the post of subject teacher in political science. 3. Consequent thereof, the Principal of Panitola High School issued the letter dated 27.03.1996 by which it was stated that the petitioner was appointed as the subject teacher in political science in the school in the scale of pay of Rs. 1785-4200 per month. Consequential order dated 05.06.1998 was also passed by the Principal of the school providing that the petitioner is appointed as per the procedure prescribed in the Government Letter dated 18.01.1996. But, subsequently it appears that the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by his communication dated 01.08.2003 had raised a confusion that the case of the petitioner was that of a fresh appointment and as the appointment order dated 27.03.1996 was issued by the Principal of the Panitola Higher Secondary School therefore, such appointment is not as per rules. 4. In such view of the matter, the Director expressed certain reservations as to the scale of pay that would be applicable to the petitioner. 5. 4. In such view of the matter, the Director expressed certain reservations as to the scale of pay that would be applicable to the petitioner. 5. But, however, the Finance Department by their note dated 20.03.2011 had clarified the matter that in the given circumstance the petitioner would be entitled to scale of pay of Rs. 4300-90-4480-120-5200-175-5900-EB-175-6600-250-8100-325-11,025/- per month. 6. Inspite of the clarification of the Finance Department, the authorities in the Education Department are not providing the petitioner with the scale of pay as clarified by the Finance Department. With such grievance this writ petition had been preferred. 7. In the writ petition, Mr. N. Sarma, again raises the same issue that by the order dated 27.09.1996 the petitioner was given a fresh appointment by the Principal of the School which according to the Department was contrary to the Rules and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the scale of pay applicable to that of a subject teacher, irrespective of the clarification given by the Finance Department. 8. This Court is the of the view that by the order dated 13.03.1996, the Panitola High School in which the petitioner was regularly appointed was upgraded to that of Panitola Higher Secondary School. Upon such upgradation being done, the post in which the petitioner was working also stood upgraded to that of subject teacher as per the communication dated 25.03.1996 of the Director of Secondary Education. The order dated 27.03.1996 is merely a consequential order passed by the Principal subject to such upgradation being done as per the orders of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. 9. It being the factual position, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the Secondary Education Department that the petitioner was given a fresh appointment by the order dated 27.03.1996. In such view of the matter, the objection raised by the Secondary Education Department is unacceptable. 10. Accordingly, as the Finance Department had already clarified that the petitioner is entitled to a scale of pay of Rs. 4300-90-4480-120-5200-175-5900-EB-175-6600-250-8100- 325-11,025/- per month, therefore, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall pay the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. Rs. 4300-90-4480-120-5200-175-5900-EB-175-6600-250-8100-325-11,025/- per month w.e.f. 28.03.1996 as provided by the Finance Department. 11. 10. Accordingly, as the Finance Department had already clarified that the petitioner is entitled to a scale of pay of Rs. 4300-90-4480-120-5200-175-5900-EB-175-6600-250-8100- 325-11,025/- per month, therefore, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall pay the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. Rs. 4300-90-4480-120-5200-175-5900-EB-175-6600-250-8100-325-11,025/- per month w.e.f. 28.03.1996 as provided by the Finance Department. 11. As the petitioner will superannuate from service at the end of this month, it is further directed that the needful be done prior to the petitioner retiring from his post so that there cannot remain any further confusion as regards his entitlement for pensionary dues. 12. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. 13. A copy of the order be furnished to Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department as well as Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department.