Delhi High Court
Ajit Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 24 May, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
ORDER
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The claim in this writ petition is for quashing of the decision of the Respondents rejecting the Petitioner's case for grant of selection grade; the impugned order was issued on 24.3.2000 by the 4th Respondent. The Petitioner has sought for direction for release of the selection grade in the pay scale of TGT in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 (pre-revised) w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
2. The Petitioner had joined the Respondent No. 5 school an aided institution on 1.9.1959 as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT). He was admittedly given selection grade as was admissible at that time w.e.f. 5.9.1971. He had completed his Post Graduation in Political Science in 1967. On 22.9.1986 the Respondents intimated that the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission would be implemented for the teachers. Subsequently, on 12.8.1987 the central Government issued certain guidelines as to the methodology to be adopted for releasing replacement scales. Under this scheme those treated as selection grade teachers prior to 1.1.1986 were to be considered as senior grade TGTs; 20% of the total strength of senior grade TGTs were to be considered for release of selection grade.
3. It is not disputed that as regards other eligibility conditions the Petitioner was entitled to consideration for grant of the pay scale of Rs. 2000- 3500. However, the bone of contention in these proceedings is the condition imposed by the Respondents of the concerned teacher having to attend a seminar of one month's duration as a requirement for grant of the selection grade.
4. During the course of the proceedings the Petitioner was granted liberty to file additional affidavit which he did on 12.9.2003. As per the averments in the affidavit and contentions of Mr. Baljit Singh, the Petitioner was subsequently promoted on a regular basis in the school as a PGT in 1992. The Petitioner has relied upon an order issued by the Government of NCT on 11.12.1997 by which several TGTs were given the benefit of selection of Rs. 2000- 3500, without their having to undergone the condition of attending the seminar. The order dated 11.12.1997 contains as stipulation that such teachers were to undergo the training within 12 months after its issuance.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon the pleadings in the counter affidavit and the reply to the additional affidavit submitted that every teacher had to participate in training before release of efficiency bar or for consideration of selection grade once every six years. It was also submitted that claimed that the Chairman of the DPC could dies pause with in service training for those who were awarded senior scale. While issuing orders for 1994- 95 and 1995-96. However, this was subject to the rider that the concerned teacher had to undergo the inservice training within one year of the order releasing it.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the Petitioner had approached the Directorate with documents and insisted that he had completed the requisite training which was not acceptable since the service training required was of a different kind.
7. I have taken through the pleadings and the relevant documents. It is clear from a perusal of the order dated 11.12.1997 that several teachers who had worked like the petitioner and had been granted the selection grade in the previous pay scale on the same date namely 5.9.1971 (in the case of some others on subsequent dates such as 1.1.1973) were given the benefit of upward pay revision in the selection grade after the 4th Pay Commission's Recommendations and given the benefit w.e.f. 1.1.1986 without having fulfillled the pre-condition of service training. Instead the department imposed the condition of such teachers having to qualify the training within one year after the issuance of the pay fixation order. This is in conformity with the stand taken by the Respondents.
8. In view of the above circumstances and also having considered the fact that admittedly the Petitioner had qualified and obtained Post Graduation qualifications in the year 1967 and was in fact promoted regularly in 1992. I am of the opinion that the position taken by the Respondents in these writ petitions is unreasonable to say the least. Even if there was some controversy as to the kind of training or documents produced by the Petitioner, nothing prevented the Respondents from extending the same treatment as was given to the other teachers who too were granted selection grade (which was declared to be equivalent to the senior scale subsequently) and impose the further condition of having to undergo the inservice training within 12 months after the issuance of the order. Therefore, the impugned order declining the Petitioner's request for release of the selection grade unreasonable. It is therefore quashed.
9. It is contended that during the pendency of these proceedings the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from the service. In this view of the matter. I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if instead of fixing the selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as was done in the case of the orders, such pay scales is given to the Petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1988.
10. A direction is accordingly issued to the Respondents to issue an appropriate pay fixation order in view of the above direction within eight weeks from today and ensure that the differential amounts are paid to the Petitioner within a further period of six weeks thereafter. The Respondents shall ensure that the differential pension and proper re-fixation order is also issued simultaneously, within the same period.
11. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Order dusty to both parties
