Gauhati High Court
Ram Murti Roy vs The Sainik School Society And 3 Ors on 12 November, 2024
Author: Nelson Sailo
Bench: Nelson Sailo
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010009632012
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5397/2012
RAM MURTI ROY
S/O- LT. HIRA LAL ROY, SAINIK SCHOOL, GOALPARA, P.O.- RAJAPARA,
DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783133.
VERSUS
THE SAINIK SCHOOL SOCIETY and 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE HONORARY SECY., MINISTRY OF DEFENSE, ROOM NO. 101,
D-WING, SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110011.
2:THE CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
SAINIK SCHOOL SOCIETY
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
SENA BHAWAN
NEW DELHI- 110011.
3:THE LOCAL BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
THE GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING
HQR
101 AREA
C/O- 99 APO.
4:THE PRINCIPAL
SAINIK SCHOOL
GOALPARA
P.O.- RAJAPARA
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.G GOSWAMI, MR.S SARMA,MR.H K DAS,MSB DEVI
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. A GAYAN, MR.N BARUA,C.G.C.,ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
Date : 12-11-2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. A. Gayan, learned CGC for all
the respondents.
2. This case has a checkered history. The petitioner aggrieved with the order dated 08.10.1991 by
which he was reverted back from Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) to Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT)
retrospective with effect from 12.06.1994 approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 209 of 1992.
Be it stated herein that the petitioner was working as a PGT in the Sainik School, Goalpara. This Court
vide order dated 07.04.1997 set aside the impugned order dated 08.10.1991 but however gave liberty to
the respondents to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after
granting opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
3. Thereafter, the respondent authority concerned passed the order dated 22.06.1998 by which the
petitioner was granted the senior scale of Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f. 15.07.1993. The petitioner being
aggrieved has again filed a writ petition before this Court, namely, Civil Rule No. 6137 of 1998
challenging the said order dated 22.06.1998. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.07.2009 by
setting aside the said impugned order and by granting him all the consequential benefits in terms of the
regulations of the school and as due to him in law. The respondents against the said judgment and order
filed Writ Appeal No. 68 of 2011 which however was dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2011. After the
dismissal of the writ appeal the petitioner submitted his representation before the respondent authority
concerned on 05.12.2011 and pursuant thereto, the respondent authority fixed the pay of the petitioner
and communicated to him vide letter dated 05.01.2012. Still being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed
his third writ petition i.e. the present case before this Court.
4. According to the petitioner he was wrongly reverted back to TGT after being promoted to PGT,
the post which he enjoyed along with the pay scale prescribed. The order reverting him back to TGT
Page No.# 3/4
dated 08.10.1991 was interfered with by this Court and also affirmed by the subsequent decision of this
Court both in the second writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. Despite the same, the pay-scale
which was enjoyed by the petitioner at the time of his promotion to PGT has not been restored and that
the scale of pay of 1640-2900 has been given to him only w.e.f. 15.07.1993. The claim of the petitioner
otherwise is that the said pay scale should be given to him w.e.f. 01.07.1984 in terms of his promotion
to the senior grade at the relevant time.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that his case is governed by 1971 Rules of the Sainik School
and not the Rules of 1997 which came subsequently. Since he had already acquired the required length
of service to be given to the higher pay scale before the Rules of 1997 came into force, the pay-scale
which is due to him w.e.f. 01.07.1984 should be directed to be given to him and the consequential
conversion of pay be done and the benefit given to him. Further as the petitioner has since retired from
service, the pensionery benefit should also be accordingly recalculated so that he can enjoy the revised
pensionery benefit.
6. The respondents have filed their counter- affidavit but having regard to the complexity of the
nature of the issue involved, this Court is of the considered view that the issue be best examined and
considered by the respondent authorities notwithstanding the impugned letter dated 05.01.2012.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner shall file a precise and concise representation by giving all the
sequence of events with supporting documents and submit the same before the respondent authorities
within a period of 1 month from today. Upon receipt of the same by the respondent authorities, the
grievance projected by the petitioner for appropriate fixation of his pay should be looked into and
examined. The respondent authorities concerned shall also give an opportunity of personal hearing to
the petitioner. Upon undertaking such exercise the respondent authority concerned shall pass a
Speaking Order determining the appropriate scale of pay to be received by the petitioner and also the
consequential steps to be taken. The entire exercise be carried out within a period of 3 months from the
date of receipt of the representation to be filed by the petitioner. It is also made clear that the impugned
communication dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure-14) shall abide by the decision to be taken by the
respondent authority and the order to be passed. It is also further provided that the claim of the
petitioner that he is eligible to be considered at the relevant time by the 1971 Rules shall also be looked
into by the respondent authorities before taking their decision.
Page No.# 4/4
8. Needless to say herein that if the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision to be taken by the
respondent authority concerned, he will be at liberty to approach this Court again.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
