Gujarat High Court
Deshabhai Ramabhai Dangar vs State Of Gujarat on 1 September, 2021
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2118 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18771 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
DESHABHAI RAMABHAI DANGAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NEERAJ J VASU(3159) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GIRISH K PATEL(2770) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR KURVEN DESAI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 01/09/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr.Neeraj Vasu for the
petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Kurven Desai for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
and learned advocate Mr.Girish Patel for the
respondent No.4.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP
Mr.Desai waives service of notice of rule for the
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and learned advocate
Mr.Girish Patel waives service of notice of rule
for the respondent No.4.
3. The petitioners of both the petitions have
prayed for quashing ad setting of the orders
passed by the respondent authorities denying
higher pay scale and further to direct the
respondents to fix and pay the full pension and
retiral benefits to the petitioners on the basis
of both the higher pay scales and to pay the same
regularly to the petitioner with all
consequential benefits.
3.1 The petitioner of Special Civil
Application No.2118 of 2018 has also prayed for
directing the respondent authorities to pay the
amount of 10% gratuity and 1/3rd amount with 18%
interest thereon and further to direct the
respondent authorities to issue revised last pay
certificate after including both the higher pay
scale.
4. The facts of both the petitions are identical
and hence the same are heard analogously and are
being disposed of by this common order. For the
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
sake of convenience, the Special Civil
Application No.2118 of 2018 is treated as a lead
case.
5. The brief facts of the case are as under :
5.1 The petitioner is holding qualification
of SSC and came to be appointed as Assistant
Teacher (Untrained) on 23.01.1981 by the
respondent No.4 on the pay-scale of untrained
Teacher.
5.2 The petitioner was appointed as
Sanchalak and for the period 1972 to 1981 and he
was working on the said post till he was absorbed
as primary teacher vide common order dated
12.01.1981. That name of the Petitioner was at
Serial No.13 in the said order dated 12.01.1981.
5.3 After being appointed as the Assistant
Teacher (untrained), by order dated 17/09.12.1994
passed by the respondent No.3 Director of Primary
Education, the petitioner as well as other
teachers were granted admission for getting
necessary training in the Adhyapan Mandir at
their own costs. It is pertinent to note that by
order dated 25.01.1995 respondent No.4 herein
ordered that the teachers who are aged 40 years
or more, for those teachers the order with regard
to training is cancelled. The petitioner at that
point of time was above 40 years of age and
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
therefore, he was not required to undergo the
training.
5.4 Pursuant to the appointment order, the
petitioner was posted at Lushan Primary School,
Tal. Vanthali, which was under the control of
respondent No.4. The petitioner has also
participated in training and has also given
training in his career as an Assistant Teacher
but the petitioner was given pay-scale of
untrained teacher.
5.5 The respondent State has floated a
policy with regard to higher pay-scale to
employees who have no promotional avenues vide
various resolutions. In this regard, various
resolutions have been passed by the respondent-
State viz., 19.06.1987, 05.07.1991, 29.04.1992,
16.08.1994, 14.08.1998, 16.04.1998, 14.06.2005,
etc. In the resolution dated 16.08.1994 in Clause
3.32, it has been categorically indicated that
the untrained teachers are also entitled to have
the benefit of the higher pay-scales. The
petitioner was granted the benefits of both the
1st and 2nd higher pay-scales as per the
resolutions passed by the Government as there is
no promotional avenue and the petitioner did not
get any promotion. The petitioner was given the
first higher pay-scale w.e.f. 28.01.1990, whereas
the second higher pay-scale was fixed w.e.f.
27.01.2001.
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
5.6 The petitioner has attained age of
superannuation on 31.08.2005 but he was granted
the benefit of term end and was relieved from
service on 31.10.2005. In fact, for all purpose
to come the date of retirement would be counted
as 31.08.2005 and accordingly, all the benefits
are to be given as per the same.
5.7 On being retired on 31.10.2005, pension
papers were prepared for petitioner and a last
pay certificate was issued. As per the last pay
certificate issued on 31.10.2005, Petitioner was
getting Rs.10,484/- including basic pay of
Rs.5,600/-. Although pension papers were prepared
and sent for approval, same were rejected vide
order dated 18.11.2005. Vide order dated
22.05.2006, Respondent No.4 herein fixed
provisional pension of Petitioner at Rs.2,121/-
till the final approval of the pension papers.
5.8 Though the petitioner has been relieved
from service, he has not been granted benefit of
10% gratuity and 1/3rd amount and he is made to
suffer. The petitioner has written letter dated
19.09.2006 to Respondent No.4 herein inter alia
requesting to grant pension after considering
both the higher pay scales granted to him. The
petitioner is not granted the retrial benefits
taking into consideration the benefits of both
the higher pay-scales.
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
5.9 By communication dated 19.09.2006,
addressed by the Local Fund Office to respondent
No.4 herein, an objection was raised for seeking
clarification from the higher authorities as to
whether the petitioner is entitled to have the
benefit of higher pay-scales or not as he was
untrained and in this regard, in the said
communication, it has been mentioned that the
issue is pending before the Finance Department
and District Primary Education Officer and no
reply or clarification is received from the same.
5.10 Similarly, situated person
Devkunverben M. Gondaliya who retired in the year
2003 has been granted the benefits of both the
higher pay-scales and full pension has also been
fixed and has been paid to the said Devkunvarben
taking into consideration both the higher pay
scales as the said employee had filed Special
Civil Application No. 13553 of 1994. However, the
petitioner who is similar to that of the said
Devkunvarben is not granted the retrial benefits
and also the full pension taking into
consideration both the higher pay-scales. The
respondents have passed orders that out of total
length of service only 60% of service shall be
considered for pension dehors the rule and in
disregard to the principles of natural justice.
5.11 The Deputy Director of Primary Education
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
by communication dated 21.08.2007 addressed to
respondent no.4 herein referred the case of the
similarly situated person like that of the
petitioner to respondent No.4 by inter alia
stating that the Education Department vide
Resolution dated 16.04.1998 has resolved that the
untrained primary teachers are required to be
given the benefit of higher pay-scale and further
directed the respondent No.4 to do further in
pursuance of the resolution dated 16.4.1998 as is
referred to in the communication dated 21.08.2007
by approving the higher pay-scale and to send the
details thereto to the respondent No.3. The
petitioner has been issued revised last pay
certificate on 11.05.2015 wherein Petitioner's
basic pay scale has been shown as Rs. 4590/and
total payable amount is Rs.8,725/-.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Neeraj Vasu appearing for
the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the
facts of the case of the petitioner are squarely
covered as per the decision of this Court
rendered in Special Civil Application No.6657 of
2010 in case of similarly situated teachers. It
was submitted that this Court vide order dated 5th
October, 2016 was pleased to quash and set aside
the letters dated 19th November, 2009, 27th
November, 2009 and 22nd December, 2009 and further
directed the respondents to recompute the pension
and other retiral benefits of the petitioners
after extending the higher pay scales to them.
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
6.1 It was submitted that the respondent
No.4 challenged the aforesaid order by preferring
a Letters Patent Appeal No.542 of 2017, which is
also dismissed by the Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 14th November, 2017.
6.2 It was also submitted by the learned
advocate Mr.Vasu that this Court vide order dated
4th September, 2017 passed in Letters Patent
appeal No.1436 of 2017 confirmed and upheld the
order dated 16th September, 2016 passed in Special
Civil Application No.13660 of 2015, wherein also
this Court quashed and set aside the order of
cancellation and withdrawal of the pay scales
granted earlier to the petitioner.
6.3 It was therefore, submitted that the
case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the
aforesaid orders as well as the resolution of the
Government.
7. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr.Kurven
Desai as well as learned advocate Mr.Girish Patel
appearing for the respondent No.4 - District
Education Officer relied upon the following
averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed
on behalf of the respondent No.4 and submitted
that the petitioner has challenged the impugned
orders after nine years and no explanation is
provided for the delay and moreover, as per the
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
Government Resolution dated 30th October, 1980,
the petitioner is required to undergo PTC
training at his own expenses but the petitioner
has failed to get the requisite qualification as
per the said G.R. and therefore, the petitioner
is not entitled for the relief prayed for in the
petition :
"4. I say and submit that the Petitioner was
working as a -- Samaj Sikshan Sanchalak from
1972 to 12-01-1981 in Adult Education classes.
When National Adult Education Scheme came to be
implemented, so such Adult Education classes
were not required and it will be closed
gradually. Therefore, the State of Gujarat,
Education Department passed a Resolution dated
3010-1980 that Samaj Sikhan Sanchalako, who
were having qualification of SCC will be
absorbed in Primary Education as Un-trained
teacher on the pay scale Of Rs. 260-350 on the
condition that they shall pass the PTC training
at their on expenses and till he pass PTC
Training they will remained as Un-trained
teacher. Copy of Resolution dt. 30-10-1980 is
annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE - R/1 to
this reply.
5. I say and submit that in view of the
aforesaid Resolution dt. 30-10-1980, the
Petitioner was appointed on 23-01-1981 on the
condition that until he pass the PTC training,
he will remain as untrained teacher in the pay
scale of Rs. 260-350, copy of appointment order
is already annexed as ANN. B, page 25 to the
petition.
6. I say and submit that the petitioner was
detailed for PTC training Centre, Mangrol at
his own costs by order dt. 07-12-1994 and name
of the petitioner is shown in the list at SI.
No. 17, copy of which is already annexed as
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
ANN. C, page 31 to this petition. As petitioner
did not undergone PTC training and having age
more than 40 years, so he was continued in
service as Un-trained teacher and his training
was cancelled by order dt. 25-01-1995, vide ANN
-- D to the petition. Therefore, the Petitioner
is entitled for pay as per untrained teacher
and not as a Trained teacher.
7. I say and submit that in view of Resolution
dt. 16-084994, clause No. 3.32, ANN. E, page
84, the Petitioner was given benefits of 1°*
and 2™ Higher grade from 28-01-1990 and 27-01-
2001 respectively, vide ANN. F to this
petition.
8. I say and submit that after reaching of
superannuation, the Petitioner was retired on
31-102005, we have prepared pension paper s and
sent for approval to Local Fund office,
Junagadh, but same was rejected on the ground
that the Petitioner is not entitled for higher
grade as he was untrained teacher, vide order
dt. 28-04-2006, therefore _ provisional pension
was approved tot the Petition, Vide ANN. 1.
9. I say and submit that the Resp. No. 1 has
been pleased to pass the impugned order dt. 19-
11-2009, directing to the Resp. No. 3, stating
the 2™ higher grade is not acceptable and if
first high grade is already granted, the same
will be withdrawn and recovery is not possible
but after giving hearing, revised pension is to
be fixed after withdrawing higher grade,
considering 60% of service period, vide Ann. A,
page 21. In view of the order dt. 19-11-2009,
the Resp. No. 3 passed order on 27-11-2009,
directing me to implement the order dt. 19-11-
2009. Accordingly, we have passed the impugned
order dt. 22-12-2009, Vide ANN. A.
10. I say and submit that the aforesaid
impugned order of 2009, have been challenged by
the Petitioner at belated stage after 9 years
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
by way of present petition and after having
accepted the pension. On these grounds, the
present petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. I say and submit that as per Govt.
Resolution dated 16-04-1998, a teacher who were
untrained and joined service after 1972 and not
having requisite qualification at the time of
joining service and as per provisions of Higher
Grade, on acquisition of the requisite
qualification, they are entitled for higher
grade. Those untrained teacher who have crossed
40 years age, training will be conducted
covering the vacation period by conducting
Special training programme. Thus, the
petitioner was required to have training during
vacation period, but he did not get the
requisite training, so he is not entitled for
higher grade as well as full pensionary
benefits. Copy of GR dt. 16-04-1998 is already
annexed as ANN. E, page 94 to the petition.
12. I say and submit that in the earlier
proceedings in similar nature of case of other
untrained teachers, i.e. Special Civil
Application No. 6657/2010, 6662/2010 and 6973/
2010 wherein this Hon'ble High Court was
pleased to allow the said petitions, setting
aside the impugned orders therein and to revise
the pension after extending the benefits of
higher grades by its order dt. 05-10-2016. The
said order was assailed before the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by way of
Letters Paten Appeal No. 1436 of 2017 & other
allied matters, wherein the Hon'ble Division
Bench have been pleased to confirm the order of
the Ld. Single Judge by its order dt. 04-
092017, Ann. O, Page 135. I say and submit that
during the aforesaid proceedings, the G..R. dt.
30-10-1980 was not produced, wherein it is
specifically stated that the requisite
qualification is necessary for getting all
benefits of trained teacher. Therefore, it is
prayed that G.R. dt. 30-10-1980 may be
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
considered while deciding the issue."
7.1 Referring to the above averments, it was
submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to
get the same benefit as was given to other
employees as the petitioner has failed to undergo
the PTC training.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and having gone through the
materials on record, the case of the petitioner
seems to be squarely covered by the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court (Coram:
Honourable The Chief Justice Mr.R.Subhash Reddy
and Honourable Mr.Justice Vipul M. Pancholi) in
Letters Patent Appeal No.1436 of 2017 in Special
Civil Application No.13660 of 2015, it is held as
under :
"6. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties, we have perused the other material
on record. It may be true that he was
untrained teacher on the date of his
appointment but having appointed him by
extending the benefit of regularization
pursuant to the resolution of the government
with effect from 30.10.1980 and continued
service till the date of retirement, there
appears to be no reason or justification on
the part of the appellant for cancellation
and withdrawal of the pay scales extended to
the original petitioner. It is not in
dispute that pursuant to clause 3(32) of the
said resolution dated 16.8.1994, the higher
pay scales were extended even to untrained
teachers. As much as, the respondent-
original petitioner is granted the benefit
of the first higher pay scale in the year
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
1990 and the second higher pay scale was
granted to him by order dated 17.8.2002,
there is no reason for cancelling such an
order. In view of the resolution dated
16.8.1994, when the untrained teachers were
also extended the benefit of higher pay
scales, all the more reason not to pass any
order for cancellation against the person
who was appointed in the year 1980 and also
retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation.
7. In view of the above and in view of the
findings recorded by the learned Single
Judge, we do not find any error committed by
the learned Single Judge so as to interfere
with the said order. This Letters Patent
Appeal is accordingly devoid of merits and
the same deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Consequently, civil application also stands
dismissed. No order as to costs."
8.1 Similarly, in Letters Patent Appeal
No.445 of 2017 and other allied matters, the
Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Honourable
Mr.Justice M.R. Shah and Honourable Mr.Justice
Biren Vaishnav) vide order dated 14th November,
2017 has held as under :
"10. Having considered the submissions of the
learned advocates for the respective parties,
what is to be noticed is as under:
A) Though the petitioner was
appointed as an untrained teacher,
and the condition of the
appointment order so stipulated that he
would undergo training, evident it is from
the communication dated 25.1.1995 issued
by the appellant himself that in the event
an incumbent attends the age of 40, he/she
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
would be exempted from undergoing
training. It is undisputed that the
petitioner had attained the age of 40, his
date of birth being 03.03.1950.
B) Even if the condition in the
Resolution of 16.4.1998 stipulated that
the untrained teacher had to undergo
training, failing which only 60%
of the service tenure would be
counted for pension and an attempt
be made to send the teachers above 40
years of age for training during vacation.
It is an undisputed fact that in the case
on hand, this condition of the Resolution
was never implemented. The petitioner was
never sent for training though
so required by the condition of such
resolution.
C) By orders dated 25.7.1994 and
20.7.2002, the petitioner was
granted the First Higher Grade
Scale and the Second Higher Grade
Scale with effect from 15.1.1990
and 15.1.2002. The petitioner
retired on superannuation in the year
2008 more than six years after the Second
Higher Grade Scale was granted by the
impugned orders recovery was sought to be
made on the purported ground of such scale
having been granted by mistake. According
to the respondents, the petitioner being
an untrained teacher was not entitled to
such scale and hence the recovery.
D) Even pension was not fixed.
For computation of pension too what was
envisaged in the orders impugned that the
service rendered by the petitioner would
be reduced to 60% of the length
of service for such computation.
11. Those conditions, therefore, invited
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
serious civil consequences. Admittedly,
an opportunity of hearing was not given to
the petitioner before such orders were passed.
12. Taking into consideration all these
circumstances, what emerges is that the
petitioner was not granted the First
Higher Grade Scale and the Second
Higher Grade Scale. Admittedly, the
communication of 25.1.1995 issued by
the appellant himself provided that
when a candidate attained the age of
40, he/she would be exempted for training. Even
the Resolution of 16.4.1998 provided
that the candidate would be sent for training
during vacation, those who had attained
the age of 40, the learned Single
Judge has rightly observed that no effort was
made and that the condition as
provided in the Resolution of 16.4.1998 was
never executed.
13. Accordingly, therefore, there was
no hindrance for the respondents not
to award the First and the Second
Higher Grade Scales to the petitioner, who not
only was exempted from undergoing training as
provided in the communication of
25.1.1995 of the appellant itself. The
impugned orders, therefore, which were
challenged before the learned Single
Judge which sought to recover the Higher
Payscales and reduce the pension and other
terminal benefits by reducing the total
length of service to 60% were illegal.
14. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion,
rightly for the reasons so advanced in the
impugned judgment set aside the letters dated
19.11.2009, 27.11.2009 and 22.12.2009 denying
the respondents the Higher Grade
Payscales as also reducing the length of
service to 60%.
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
15. Accordingly, having agreed with the
findings of the learned Single Judge,
the Appeals stands dismissed. The resultant
Civil Applications are also accordingly
dismissed. The appellant is directed
to recompute the pension and other
retiral benefits of the respondent No.1 in
the Appeals after extending to them the Higher
Grade Payscales in accordance with the
directions issued by the learned
Single Judge. The exercise shall be carried
out within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order."
8.2 In case of Kodiyatar Virabhai Dayabhai &
14 Vs. State of Gujarat & 7, this court (Coram:
Honourable Mr.Justice N.V. Anjaria) vide order
dated 30th September, 2016 in special Civil
Application No.3073 of 2016 has held as under :
"5. The Resolution of the Education Department,
State Government, dated 16th April, 1998
provide for a scheme for grant of higher pay-
scale to the untrained teachers. It is provided
that when untrained teachers were recruited, at
that time the qualified persons were not
available. It was stated that their services
continued for long and therefore giving them
the benefit of pay-scale, etc., was under
contemplation and it was provided that their
service shall be continued and they would be
sent for training at their own expense; until
they are not given training, their 60% service
tenure would be considered for the service
benefit purpose and after completion of
training, they would be entitled to all the
benefits. It appears that on 30th March, 2007,
the Director of Primary Education passed order
dated the petitioners could be granted benefit
having regard to the aforesaid provision of
recognition of 60% of their service. At that
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
time the issue which faced litigation was
pending. Now, the position uncontrovertedly
emerges is that the Letters Patent Appeal has
been disposed of clearing the controversy, and
the petitioners have never been sent for the
training and they have been continued in
service and are deprived of the trained pay-
scale without any fault of their own.
5.1 In K.K. Gohil Vs State of Gujarat [(2015) 9
SCC 652] facts were that in terms of Government
Resolution dated 16th August, 1994 higher grade
scale was grantable to the employees who had
completed nine years of service, which was to
be on the basis of compliance of certain
conditions including passing of departmental
examination. The higher grade scale was liable
to be withdrawn under the Resolution if an
employee does not pass the examination. The
departmental examination was not organised
during the eligibility period for granting
higher pay-scale. The Supreme Court held that
the benefit could not be stalled on such
ground. The appellant of that case was held
eligible for getting higher pay- scale even
though the departmental examination was not
passed, as it was not conducted at all. The
order by which the benefit was withdrawn was
held unsustainable.
5.2 Similar principle was highlighted by this
Court in Bhagatsinh Nathanael Mecwan Vs State
of Gujarat being Special Civil Application
No.2146 of 2009 decided on 31st March, 2009 in
which this Court observed,
"... considering the fact that when since
1991, the departmental promotional
examination has not been conducted by the
respondent-State and when the petitioner
was always ready and willing to appear in
the examination and had twice filled up
the form, petitioner cannot be denied the
benefit of higher grade scale on
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
completion of 9 (nine) years service
solely on the ground that petitioner has
not passed departmental promotional
examination, which is not conducted by the
State since 1991. To deny the benefit of
higher grade scale to the petitioner on
the ground that petitioner has not passed
departmental promotional examination would
be penalizing the petitioner/employee for
their no fault. It is also required to be
noted that even in the present Special
Civil Application also, in paragraph 13 of
petition, petitioner undertakes to appear
and pass the examination within the
prescribed trials whenever it is
held. ..."
(Para 14)
6. Reverting back to the facts of this case,
the condition of the appointment of the
petitioners as reflected from the specimen
appointment order on record, it was stipulated
that after appointment the appointee had to
undergo training as would be required and at
his own expense. It was further provided that
only one opportunity for offering training
would be given and if appointee fails to attend
the training, his services would be liable to
be dispensed with. The petitioners never sent
for training ever since they came to be
appointed in the year 1990. For all these years
they were ready and willing to go for training.
Nothing prevented the authorities to send the
petitioners for training. It is apparent that
for no good reason and not on account of their
fault that they petitioners have been deprived
of the benefit of higher grade pay-scale. They
have completed more than 25 years of services.
The petitioners have stated that they are ready
and willing to undergo training as and when
asked for. It is for the respondents to decide
on the aspect, however if and since the
respondents have not conducted and have not
sent the petitioner for training, for that
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
reason they cannot deny the grant of benefit.
The treatment is indeed rendered unreasonable
and arbitrary to entitle the petitioners to
relief in the facts and circumstances of the
case and the principle laid down by the Court
in the aforementioned decisions.
7. For the foregoing discussion, the petition
deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed by
directing,
(a) The competent respondent authority shall
grant to the petitioners the benefit of scheme
of higher grade scale under Education
Department Resolution dated 16th April, 1998;
(b) The petitioners shall be given the scale of
trained teacher as they have completed 25 years
of services;
(c) Prayer in terms of 14(b) is allowed along
with the aforesaid direction to grant to the
petitioners the benefit of higher scale as has
already been granted to the similarly situated
other teachers in accordance with order dated
30th March, 2007 of the Director of Primary
Education read with Government Resolution dated
16th April, 1998;
(d) It would be open for the respondent to
send the petitioners of training;
(e) The benefit directed as (a), (b) and (c)
above shall be conferred and paid to the
petitioners including the arrears, within a
period of three months from the date of receipt
of this order."
9. In view of the above conspectus of law, the
petitioner cannot be denied benefit of higher
pays scale only because the petitioner has
approached this Court at belated stage and as
C/SCA/2118/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021
such both the petitions are allowed by quashing
and setting aside the impugned orders passed by
the respondent authorities so as to fix and pay
the full pension and retiral benefits to the
petitioners on the basis of both the higher grade
pay scales alongwith arrears of pension within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
the writ of this order. The respondents are also
further directed to issue revised last pay
certificate after including both the higher grade
pay scale.
10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
dolly
