ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs: “(i) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 that means, the institution to pay the petitioner the salary which is payable to the post of “Upper Division Teacher’ from December, 2009 to till his retirement. (ii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the petitioner was appointed to the post of ‘Upper Division Teacher’ on 23.11.1981 in the institution, known as Dau R.P. National Higher Secondary School, Durg, respondent no. 2 herein. The said institution is receiving the grant-in-aid from the Ayog for payment of salary to its teachers and governed by the provisions known as Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1998 and that for recruitment to the aided educational institutions statutory recruitment rules have been framed under the Act, which is known as Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ki Bharti) Niyam, 1979. 3. The petitioner who was appointed as Upper Division Teacher has been confirmed subsequently on the basis of resolution, dated 13.01.1985 passed by the institution in this regard. At the time of audit of the institution in year 1986, an audit objection was raised that the petitioner is not entitled to the salary of the post of Upper Division Teacher’ as he does not possess the minimum prescribed educational qualifications for the said post and, in consequence, recommended that he be paid the salary of the post of Lower Division Teacher’ and, ultimately his post as well as emoluments have been reduced from the post of Upper Division Teacher’ to the post of ‘Lower Division Teacher’. 4. Since, the said decision was taken without the default of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition by questioning the same before the erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of M.P. where the petition was registered as M.P. No. 1847/1986, titled as Anang Kumar Agrawal vs. Director of Public Instruction and Others. 4. Since, the said decision was taken without the default of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition by questioning the same before the erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of M.P. where the petition was registered as M.P. No. 1847/1986, titled as Anang Kumar Agrawal vs. Director of Public Instruction and Others. Upon hearing the parties, the aforesaid petition was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. by its order dated 15.03.1993 (Annexure P/1) by holding, inter-alia, that the petitioner does not possess the minimum prescribed educational qualifications and the selection committee was not duly constituted as per the provisions required under the said recruitment rules and, therefore, held that the State Government is neither legally bound to recognize the petitioner as ‘Upper Division Teacher’ nor is liable to release grant for payment of the said post. It, however, held further, that since the petitioner was not only appointed by the institution as a ‘Upper Division Teacher’ but has been confirmed as such also, therefore, while allowing the petition in part, has issued further directions at Para 12 in following terms: “12. Consequently, the petition partly succeeds. It is directed that the respondent no. 1 and 2 shall continue to release grant-in-aid for payment of salary to the petitioner for the post of Lower Division Teacher. The respondent no. 3, however, is directed to recognize the petitioner as Upper Division Teacher on the post of on which he was confirmed and pay hi salary of that post and meet the additional expenditure for the purpose over and above the grant received from the Ayog.” 5. In view of the above directions, the respondent no. 2 i.e. the institution is legally bound to pay the difference of salary to the petitioner of the post of “Upper Division Teacher.” The institution had assured him also to pay the current salary which is payable to the “Upper Division Teacher.” The said assurance/undertaking was made by the institution in a contempt petition, being Contempt Petition No. 27/1995 on 28.09.1995. The respondent institution was regularly paying him the salary of ‘Upper Division Teacher’ by deducting the salary of ‘Lower Division Teacher’ which was being paid by the State Government, up to the month of November, 2009. However, all of a sudden, the respondent no. The respondent institution was regularly paying him the salary of ‘Upper Division Teacher’ by deducting the salary of ‘Lower Division Teacher’ which was being paid by the State Government, up to the month of November, 2009. However, all of a sudden, the respondent no. 2 institution has stopped in paying him the salary of ‘Upper Division Teacher’ causing immense loss to the petitioner. The petitioner made several representations and requested to pay the salary of ‘Upper Division Teacher’ as per the direction contained in the order, dated 15.03.1993 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in the said petition, but, all in vain, hence this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2, institution has erred in stopping the salary to the petitioner for the post of ‘Upper Division Teacher’. He submits that the respondent institution ought to have obeyed the direction contained in the order dated 15.03.1993 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in M.P. No. 1847/1986. The respondent institution had given his undertaking/assurance to the petitioner for paying the current salary payable to the ‘Upper Division Teacher’ to him in Contempt Petition No. 27/1995 as evidenced by the order dated 28.09.1995 (Annexure P/2). He further submits that the respondent institution has no any right or authority to disobey the directions contained in the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. and instead, is under legal obligation to pay the petitioner the salary of Upper Division Teacher in strict compliance of the said order. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1996 SC 669 and the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Daya Shanker Bhardwaj vs. Chief of the Air Staff, New Delhi and Others, AIR 1988 All. 36 . 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/State strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the respondent State authority i.e. the District Education Officer passed an order dated 31/07/2009 wherein the pay structure of the petitioner and other similarly situated teachers were revised and benefit of the Krammonati was extended to them by granting higher pay scale by virtue of Krammonati as described in Annexure R-1. The petitioner has already been granted the benefit of higher pay scale, hence the State Government is releasing the salary payable to the petitioner as shown in Order Annexure R-1 as grant in aid to the respondent no. 2-School. The main grievance of the petitioner is against the respondent no. 2-School as the petitioner has claimed that the employer/respondent no. 2-School should continue making payment of difference amount of salary to the petitioner, which was being paid to him by the respondent no. 2-School due to some internal arrangement between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2-School. The petitioner is entitled for the pay structure granted to him by virtue of Annexure R-1 and the grant being given by the State Government to the respondent no. 2-School would be in accordance with the entitlement of the petitioner as per the order of Hon’ble M.P. High Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 also strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was being paid salary of Upper Division Teacher by giving personal pay though he was qualified for Lower Division Teacher as per order of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in 18 paragraph of Annexure P/1, thereafter, respondent no. 2 has recognized the petitioner as Upper Division Teacher. Due to considerable lapse of time and after getting the time bound scale the petitioner is now upgraded to Lecturer and he is now receiving salary of Lecturer. The personal pay given to the petitioner as per Annexure P/1 is merged with the scale of Lecturer. Henceforth, there is no requirement of paying him a lower salary of Upper Division Teacher. Since the post of the petitioner has been upgraded and he is now being paid an upgraded salary of Lecturer, it is for the petitioner to decide whether he wants to take the benefit of the up-gradation or he wants to continue with the grade of the Upper Division Teacher only. By filing this petition, the petitioner is seeking to draw dual benefit out of the High Court’s order and the up-gradation granted to him. The petitioner cannot be granted dual benefit as by paying him the upgraded salary of Lecturer and again separately granting him the payment of Upper Division Teacher. By filing this petition, the petitioner is seeking to draw dual benefit out of the High Court’s order and the up-gradation granted to him. The petitioner cannot be granted dual benefit as by paying him the upgraded salary of Lecturer and again separately granting him the payment of Upper Division Teacher. The petitioner cannot claim the salary of Upper Division Teacher from 2009 till his retirement, unless he agrees to forgo his claim on the salary of Lecturer and accept that he is ready to receive the salary of Upper Division Teacher solely. The petitioner had become eligible for the salary of Upper Division Teacher in compliance of the High Court’s order date 15.03.1993 and the respondent had agreed to pay the petitioner salary of Upper Division Teacher that was regularly paid without fail and is also currently being paid merged in the salary of Lecturer after his up-gradation. The personal pay given to the petitioner as per Annexure P/1 is merged with the scale of Lecturer, therefore, there is no requirement of paying him a lower salary of Upper Division Teacher. The petitioner is now receiving the upgraded salary of Lecturer. The petitioner is trying to misguide this Court. The present petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 10. It is an admitted position in this case that in the previous writ petition (i.e. Misc. Petition No. 1847/1986) the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed in Para 12 as under: “12. Consequently, the petition partly succeeds. It is directed that the respondent No. 1 and 2 shall continue to release grant-in-aid for payment of salary to the petitioner for the post of Lower Division Teacher. The respondent No. 3, however, is directed to recognize the petitioner as Upper Division Teacher on the post on which he was confirmed and pay him salary of that post and meet the additional expenditure for the purpose over and above the grant received from the Ayog.” 11. Grievance of the petitioner is that from 2009 he was not getting salary of Upper Division Teacher and as per order dated 31.07.2009 (Annexure R/1), pay of the petitioner and other similarly situated teachers was upgraded due to Kramonnati (Higher Pay-scale). Grievance of the petitioner is that from 2009 he was not getting salary of Upper Division Teacher and as per order dated 31.07.2009 (Annexure R/1), pay of the petitioner and other similarly situated teachers was upgraded due to Kramonnati (Higher Pay-scale). Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of “M.R. Gupta” (supra) in Para 6 held as under: “6. The Tribunal misdirected itself when it treated the appellant’s claim as ‘one time action’ meaning thereby that it was not a continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of action. The claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules. This right of a Government servant to be paid the correct salary throughout his tenure according to computation made in accordance with rules, is akin to the right of redemption which is an incident of a subsisting mortgage and subsists so long as the mortgage itself subsists, unless the equity of redemption is extinguished. It is settled that the right of redemption is of this kind.” 12. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 not paying difference of salary as per the order of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and as per entitlement of the petitioner. The respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that by Annexure R/1 his pay was upgraded, therefore, he is not entitle for any different. In his rejoinder, the petitioner rebutted the claim of the respondents and submits that since December 2009, respondent No. 2 stopped paying the difference in amount between the salary of Upper Division Teacher and Lower Division Teacher, which it was obligated to pay as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Annexure P/4 is pay slips of the petitioner, Annexure P/5 is pay slip of one Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, who was also appointed with the petitioner as Upper Division Teacher and Annexure P/6 is service book of the petitioner, which would go on to show that the petitioner’s pay scale has not been merged with the pay scale of lecturer. 13. Arun Kumar Tiwari, who was also appointed with the petitioner as Upper Division Teacher and Annexure P/6 is service book of the petitioner, which would go on to show that the petitioner’s pay scale has not been merged with the pay scale of lecturer. 13. It is clear from pay slip of other employee and petitioner (Annexure P/4 and P/5) that there is a difference in the pay band of the petitioner and other employee Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, which are quoted below for the facility of reference: fooj.k v:.k dqekj frokjh vuax dqekj vxzoky osru cSaM 19370 17680 xzsM osru 4300 4300 ;ksx 23670 21980 eagxkbZ HkRrk 25327 23519 Áca/kdh; va'knku 2840 2638 edku HkRrk 2367 2198 vU; ,fj;lZ && && ;ksx osru 54204 50335 dVkSrh 'kkŒvaŒ 2840 2638 dŒvaŒ 2840 2638 lkekU; Hkfo”; fuf/k 2900 2700 Hkfo”; fuf/k vfxze && && ;ksx dVrh 8580 7976 deZpkjh [kkrs esa tek 45624 42359 iatkc us'kuy cSad nqxZ [kkrk Øekad 95981 95972 14. It is also clear from Annexure R/1 that some employees, who got regular pay-scale from 1981, 1982 and 1983, their fixation was Rs.6500-10500, and petitioner’s fixation was Rs. 5500-9500. It is apparent from Annexure R/1 at S. No. 21, 22, 41, 42, 43 & 44 that their date of regular pay-scale are from 1981 to 1983 and they are getting fixation Rs. 6500-10500 and petitioner’s pay-scale is Rs. 5500-9500. 15. The aforesaid documents are not rebutted by the respondents No. 1 & 2 by filing any counter document or counter rejoinder. As per Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules. 16. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and guidelines by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to again calculate the pay of petitioner as per order of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. and as per Rules and as per pay fixed by other employees in Annexure R/1 and pay all difference from 2009 to till date. 17. The respondents are directed to again calculate the pay of petitioner as per order of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. and as per Rules and as per pay fixed by other employees in Annexure R/1 and pay all difference from 2009 to till date. 17. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation in the department within one month with his option form as per Rule, if it is required, and the respondents in turn shall fix the salary in accordance with the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and other Rule, as fixed in the case of other similarly situated employees. 18. Let this exercise be completed by the respondent authorities preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.