Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 37 (MEG)

Pramod Kr. Rajoria v. Union of India

2018-07-25

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. The case setup by petitioner is that he was appointed by respondent No. 2 against the post of Principal in Assam Rifles Public School vide office memo No. 14017/ARPS/Appt/2006/433 dated 27th October 2006 in the grade of Rs. 14300-400-18300/- along with other pay and allowances. He joined service on 11th November, 2006 his service was confirmed vide office order No. ARPS/Off-Ord/2007/1215 dated 27th November, 2007 w.e.f. 1st November, 2007. He was awarded "Awantika Dr. Radhakrishnan Award" for contribution in the field of education and bringing remarkable changes for better qualities of education in the respondent school. 2. In the year 2006, the 6th Pay Commission made recommendations but same were not implemented as a result whereof staff members (both teaching and non-teaching) filed writ petition which was dismissed but was allowed by Division Bench. While disposing of Writ Appeal No. (SH) 35 of 2011 vide judgment dated 05.09.2012 respondent authorities were directed to implement the 6th Pay Commission regarding teaching as well as non-teaching staff w.e.f. 01.01.2006 together with increased dearness allowance w.e.f July 2009. The said judgment was assailed by medium of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court unsuccessfully as the said SLP was dismissed on 21st July, 2015 and Division Bench judgment was directed to be implemented within eight months which finally has been implemented but benefits of the 6th Pay Commission have not been extended to petitioner. 3. It is admitted fact that petitioner was appointed as Principal of respondents school w.e.f. dated 27th October 2006 and his services were confirmed w.e.f. 1st November, 2007. The petitioner on health ground had tendered resignation which stand accepted, therefore he ceased to be an employee of the school w.e.f. 30th September, 2012. 4. The petitioner seems to have represented before the respondent authorities for sanction and payment of arrears as accrued to him pursuant to implementation of the 6th Pay Commission which the respondents have not responded. Hence the instant petition with a prayer that the respondents be commanded to release arrears and allowances due to the petitioner as admissible under the 6th Pay Commission along with the increased Dearness Allowances w.e.f. 1st July, 2008. 5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated more particularly in Para-8 that the School Management Committee had already complied with the Hon'ble Supreme Court directions and paid arrears amounting to Rs. 5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated more particularly in Para-8 that the School Management Committee had already complied with the Hon'ble Supreme Court directions and paid arrears amounting to Rs. 8.12 crores to the staff as per 6th CPC for which a loan of Rs. 5.75 crores was given by HQ DGAR in order to save the School from closing down as the school funds had only 2.47 crores in FDRs which were also encashed. It is pertinent to mention that the arrears were paid to those who were party to the earlier lis. The petitioner had already resigned from service at the time of disbursement of the arrears to the employees of the respondent school. 6. It is further stated in Para-11 of the counter affidavit that due to the deteriorated financial condition of the school, a mutual agreement was reached between the staff and the school Management Committee that the staff will voluntarily forego the enhanced DA for a period of one year starting from 1st January, 2016 to 31st December, 2016 and the staff would refrain from taking SDA, TPT allowance and LTC for next three years w.e.f. 1st January, 2017. 7. The only question for determination in view of admitted position emerges as to whether petitioner after having resigned from service would be entitled to get arrears in view of the 6th Pay Commission implementation. The answer has to be in affirmative. Once in principle the 6th Pay Commission recommendation have been implemented benefits arising there from will be available to all teaching and non-teaching staff w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The petitioner admittedly as on 01.01.2006 was the Principal of the school and continued to hold the same position till the date of his resignation means he ceased to be an employee of the school w.e.f. 30th September, 2012. Therefore, the intervening period i.e. 01.01.2006 till 30th September, 2012 he was an employee of the school and is entitled to the benefit as available for the said period. 8. True it is that the petitioner has resigned and he has been paid all dues in accordance with pay scale as was applicable at that time. Therefore, the intervening period i.e. 01.01.2006 till 30th September, 2012 he was an employee of the school and is entitled to the benefit as available for the said period. 8. True it is that the petitioner has resigned and he has been paid all dues in accordance with pay scale as was applicable at that time. The 6th Pay Commission has been implemented, after long drawn of litigation, w.e.f. 01.01.2006, therefore at the time petitioner resigned benefits of the 6th Pay Commission were not available those benefits have become available on implementation of the judgment rendered by the Division bench and upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court directing to provide benefits of the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 9. The petitioner is entitled to the benefits which have accrued to him in pursuance to implementation of 6th Pay Commission, therefore respondents are directed to workout arrears whatever due to the petitioner for the period 1st January, 2006 to 30th September, 2012 and same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In default, amount shall be recoverable with interest @ 6% per annum. 10. Petition allowed and disposed of as above.