JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam as well as Mr. A. Chetry, learned counsel for the Pension Department, Assam. 2. All the four petitions are taken up for a final consideration together inasmuch as, the claims of the respective writ petitioners are based on the same set of facts and a common adjudication would meet the requirement of all of them. For the purpose of brevity, we are just taking note of the facts of WP(C)No. 4689/2016 on the understanding that the facts involved in the other three writ petitions are also of the same nature without there being any substantial variations calling for a different view to be taken. 3. The petitioner in WP(C)No. 4689/2016 had obtained his graduate degree in the year 1976 and thereafter on 08.04.1978, he was appointed as an assistant teacher in the intermediate scale of pay in the Gangapukhuri Government Aided High School in the Kamrup district, which is presently known as Gangapukhuri High School. Similarly, the other writ petitioners had also obtained their graduate degree in various years and upon obtaining their graduate degrees were appointed as assistant teachers in the intermediate scale of pay in their respective high schools. According to the petitioners, a circular dated 20.03.1979 was issued by the Education Department of the Government of Assam providing for a graduate scale of pay in respect of those Assistant Teachers who had the graduation degree as their qualification. The petitioners state that thereafter another circular dated 12.06.1981 was also issued providing that the assistant teachers in the intermediate scale of pay having a graduate degree would be entitled to a graduate scale of pay. In respect of some other similarly situated persons, there were earlier litigations as regards the claim of graduate scale of pay on the premises that the concerned teachers although appointed in the intermediate scale of pay had graduate qualification prior to their appointment and, secondly, such benefit of graduate scale were given to them as per the aforesaid two Government circulars. In some of such litigations, the Division Bench of this Court had arrived at a conclusion that the circular dated 12.06.1981 is a non-existent circular which was not issued by any appropriate authority. 4. In some of such litigations, the Division Bench of this Court had arrived at a conclusion that the circular dated 12.06.1981 is a non-existent circular which was not issued by any appropriate authority. 4. Be that as it may, the Government of Assam had issued a further Notification No. B(3)S.888/93/10 dated 30.12.1993. By the said Notification, it was provided that in the interest of public service all the existing posts of assistant teacher in the intermediate scale of pay of Rs.1185-2395/-per month were upgraded to the post of assistant teacher in graduate scale of pay of Rs.1375-3375/- per month from the date of issue of the Notification, where such posts are being held by the incumbents having a graduate degree. 5. Accordingly, a perusal of the Notification dated 30.12.1993 goes to show that all such assistant teachers who were working in the High Schools in an intermediate scale of pay and who had the graduate qualification prior to their respective appointment were entitled to the graduate scale of pay from the date of the Notification. The Notification dated 30.12.1993 further provided that a district-wise list of total number of such admissible post are provided in Annexure-1 to the said Notification. When atleast one of the petitioners had raised their claim by way of WP(C)No.1679/2015, the State respondents on 08.06.2016 had produced an order bearing Memo No. ELC/COP(C)247/2004/480/87-A dated 13.07.2004 and contended that in terms of the said order, the petitioners are disentitled to a graduate scale of pay. 6. In this writ petition, the order dated 13.07.2004 is being assailed, amongst others, on the ground that it was never served on the petitioners and, therefore, is not binding on them. The law in this respect has been settled by the Supreme Court in its Judgment rendered in State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika reported in AIR 66 SC 1313 wherein in paragraph 15 it has been held that if an order has been passed by any authority and the same is being kept in the file without being served on the concerned person it does not have any existence in the eye of law. 7. As the authorities in the Education Department intends to rely upon the order dated 13.07.2004 against the petitioner, the law requires that the same be atleast served on the petitioner in order to have its effect upon them. 8. 7. As the authorities in the Education Department intends to rely upon the order dated 13.07.2004 against the petitioner, the law requires that the same be atleast served on the petitioner in order to have its effect upon them. 8. Admittedly, the said order was brought to the notice of the petitioners on 08.06.2016, and, therefore, from the point of view of the petitioners, the existence of the order dated 13.07.2004 has to be construed from 08.06.2018 onwards and not prior to it. The aforesaid aspect as regards the applicability of the said order dated 13.07.2004 in respect of the petitioner from 08.06.2016, assumes its importance in view of the objection raised by Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department that this writ petition has been filed at a very belated stage for assailing the order dated 13.07.2004. 9. In view of the aspect that the order dated 13.07.2004 was brought to the notice of the present petitioners on 08.06.2016, the objection raised by Mr. N. Sarma is unacceptable and we cannot refuse to entertain the petition merely on the said plea of there being a delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court. The adjudication on the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to a graduate scale of pay assumes importance in the factual background of the case that during their service tenure by virtue of various interim orders, the petitioners were allowed to continue with the graduate scale of pay that were given to them. It is stated that such interim orders were passed on the premises where initially although a graduate scale of pay was given to the petitioners, but subsequently by certain orders, the same were sought to be withdrawn. It is further stated that continuing as such, the petitioners have in the meantime superannuated from service and on the date of their superannuation, they were paid the graduate scale of pay. 10. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners claim that their pensionary benefits be also paid by taking into consideration that they were receiving the graduate scale of pay at the time of their superannuation. 10. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners claim that their pensionary benefits be also paid by taking into consideration that they were receiving the graduate scale of pay at the time of their superannuation. As the claim of the petitioners for their pensionary benefits at the graduate scale of pay has been refused by the respondents in the Secondary Education Department by relying upon the order dated 13.07.2004, we are now called upon to adjudicate the validity and applicability of the said order in respect of the petitioners. 11. Without going into any other aspect of the matter we take note of that in paragraph 8 of the order dated 13.07.2004, it has been provided as under: “8. By the Government Notification No.B(3) S.888/93/10 dated 30-12-1993 the Government of Assam ordered that ‘in the interest of public service all the existing posts of Assistant Teachers in intermediate scale of pay of Rs.1185-2395/- P.M. with graduate incumbents of provincialised High/Higher Secondary Schools are upgraded to the post of Assistant Teacher in graduate scale of Rs.1375-3375/- P.M. from the date of issue of this order….” 12. A perusal of the provisions of paragraph 8 containing an extract of the Notification dated 30.12.1993 shows that in the interest of public service all the existing teachers in the intermediate scale of pay who had the graduate qualification from their date of initial appointments are being upgraded to the graduate scale of pay from the date of the said order i.e., 30.12.1993. Situated thus, the only determination that the authorities are required to make is as to whether as on 30.12.1993, the petitioners who were working in the intermediate scale of pay had their graduate qualification prior to their respective appointment. If the said condition is fulfilled they would come within the purview of the expression “all the existing post of Assistant Teacher in the intermediate scale” and in that event, they would be entitled to a graduate scale of pay from 30.12.1993 itself. 13. Further in paragraph 9 of the order dated 13.07.2004, it is provided that the said Notification indicates that all the existing Intermediate Teachers having the graduate qualification were upgraded to a graduate scale of pay by not leaving out anyone who had worked in the intermediate scale of pay. 13. Further in paragraph 9 of the order dated 13.07.2004, it is provided that the said Notification indicates that all the existing Intermediate Teachers having the graduate qualification were upgraded to a graduate scale of pay by not leaving out anyone who had worked in the intermediate scale of pay. If such conclusion is accepted to be correct it is for the Department to explain under what circumstances, the petitioners were left out from being provided with the graduate scale of pay. If the said conclusion in the order of 13.07.2004 is to be accepted, only two situation can prevail i.e., either the petitioner did not meet the requirement of being an assistant teacher in intermediate scale having a graduate degree prior to the date of their appointment or that the petitioners were in fact paid the graduate scale of pay. But the facts narrated indicate that neither of the two aforesaid situations had existed in case of the petitioners. It being so, the only conclusion that can be arrived is that the provision in the order dated 13.07.2004 that not a single soul in the intermediate scale in a provincialised High Schools were left out appears to be incorrect. 14. Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel seeks to justify the said provisions in the order dated 13.07.2004 by referring to the Notification dated 30.12.1993 which also provides that the district wise total number of such admissible post/teachers had been prepared and received from the respective Inspectors. By referring to the said provision of the Notification of 30.12.1993, Mr. Sarma contends that if the names of the petitioners were not included in the said list they would not be covered by the provisions of the Notification. In order to examine the acceptability of such contention of Mr. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, we take note that the main body of the Notification dated 30.12.1993 provides that all such assistant teachers in intermediate scale of pay but having graduate qualification from the date prior to their appointment are entitled to a graduate scale of pay. The list referred in the second paragraph of the said Notification which is stated to be annexed as Annexure-1 is merely a list compiled by the authorities in respect of such teachers. The list referred in the second paragraph of the said Notification which is stated to be annexed as Annexure-1 is merely a list compiled by the authorities in respect of such teachers. If the name of the petitioners do not appear in the said Annexure-1 list, it has to be construed that the Annexure-1 list is in conflict with the provisions of the Notification of 30.12.1993 that all Assistant Teachers with intermediate scale are entitled to a graduate scale of pay. 15. Annexure-1 referred in the Notification of 30.12.1993 would have to be construed to be in the nature of a schedule to the Notification. The law as regards the interpretation in respect of a conflict between the main provision of an enactment and that of the schedule has been settled by the Supreme Court in its Judgment rendered in M/s. Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in (1989) 4 SCC 378 wherein in paragraph 31 it has been provided as thus:- “…….. The schedule may be used in construing provisions in the body of the Act. It is as much an act of Legislature as the Act itself and it must be read together with the Act for all purposes of construction. Expressions in the Schedule cannot control or prevail against the express enactment and in case of any inconsistency between the schedule and the enactment the enactment is to prevail and if any part of the schedule cannot be made to correspond it must yield to the Act.” 16. The aforesaid proposition clearly lays down that while interpreting the main provisions and that of the schedule thereof, the provisions of the main provisions would prevail over the provisions of the schedule, in the event of there being a conflict. 17. In view of such interpretation as regards the provisions between the main provision and that of the schedule, we are unable to accept the contention of the authorities in the Secondary Education Department that as because the names of the petitioners do not appear in the Annexure-1 list to the Notification dated 30.12.1993, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit provided in the main provisions, i.e., all such assistant teachers in the intermediate scale having graduate qualification from prior to their appointment would be entitled to a graduate scale of pay from the date of the said Notification i.e.,30.12.1993. Accordingly, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for a graduate scale of pay from 30.12.1993 as provided in the said Notification is found to be unacceptable. 18. The State respondent authorities in the Education Department are directed to give an appropriate consideration to the claim of the petitioners for a graduate scale of pay in terms of the Notification dated 30.12.1993 and pass all consequential orders as may be required. 19. As the claim of the petitioners is for payment of pension, the authorities in the Education Department and thereupon the authorities in the Pension Department shall do the needful for passing a final order as regards their claim. The aforesaid exercise be done within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 20. These writ petitions stand disposed of to the extent indicated hereinabove.