(iii) That the respondents may be directed to make
the payment of arrears to the applicant w.e.f.
1.1.1996 to 1.4.1990 on account of revision of Pay
Scale.
(iv) That the respondents may be directed to make
the payment of above arrears with interest @ 12%."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
joined Department of Education, Government of Himachal
Pradesh on 01.03.1974 as OT (Shastri). During his service, the
petitioner passed B.Ed. course from Himachal Pradesh University
in 1996-1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post
of TGT(Arts) vide order dated 02.05.1998. Petitioner joined on the
said post on 20.05.1998.
3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that he has
not been paid arrears for the period 01.03.1998 to 20.05.1998 as
per fixation of his pay after grant of proficiency step-up allowed in
his favour w.e.f. 01.03.1998. The petitioner claims that his pay
was fixed at Rs.8,375/- after grant of proficiency step-up in his
favour w.e.f. 01.03.1998. The petitioner is also aggrieved against
the non-payment of arrears for the period 20.05.1998 to June
1999 as per fixation of his pay after promotion to the post of
TGT(Arts). For such purposes, the petitioner claims to have been
fixed for the purposes of salary at Rs.8,650/- per month. In
addition, the petitioner has also alleged non-payment of arrears of
revision of pay scale as Shastri from 01.01.1986 to April 1990.
4. The respondents have contested the claim of the
petitioner and have alleged the same to be fallacious. It has been
submitted that the petitioner was granted proficiency step-up in
the scale of Rs.1800-3200 by fixing his pay at Rs.1800/- w.e.f.
01.01.1986. Thereafter, the second proficiency step-up was
allowed to him in the scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.03.1992
and his pay was fixed at Rs.2,500/-. As per the respondents, the
petitioner was not entitled to two proficiency step-ups. On such
premise, the fixation of pay of petitioner is stated to be wrongly
fixed. The respondents thus, claim the recovery of excess amount
from the petitioner. As regards the arrears claimed by the
petitioner for the period 20.05.1998 to June 1999, it has been
contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of FR
22(1)a(i) as he was already drawing the pay scale of Rs.5480-
8925 in the lower grade, which was also the initial pay scale of
promotional post.
5. On 23.02.2011, this Court had allowed the
respondents to file supplementary affidavit. Accordingly, an
affidavit dated 15.03.2011 was filed by then then Director,
Elementary Education, reiterating the same stand that the second
proficiency step-up was erroneously given to petitioner. As per the
contents of this affidavit, the petitioner was to become entitled for
benefit of ACP from 01.05.1998 after completion of 8 years w.e.f.
01.05.1990. With respect to the arrears claimed by the petitioner
for the period 20.05.1998 to June 1999, also the same stand, as
taken in the original reply, was reiterated. As regards the claim of
arrears of revision of pay scale from 01.01.1986 to April 1990, it
was stated that since the petitioner had already been fixed at
higher pay and the recoveries were liable to be effected from him,
his claim was not permissible.
6. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit dated
14.03.2012 and stated that the respondents had withdrawn the
benefit of step-up of pay given to him w.e.f. 01.03.1992 vide office
order dated 02.12.2002. The petitioner placed a copy of said
order on record as Annexure-B with the counter affidavit. He
further submitted that office order dated 01.12.2002 was assailed
by petitioner in CWP(T) No.10694 of 2008 before this Court and
the said order was quashed and set aside vide judgment dated
23.03.2010. It was also submitted by the petitioner that in
compliance to the aforesaid judgment dated 23.03.2010, the
respondents had withdrawn the office order dated 02.12.2002.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the record carefully.
8. The petitioner has placed reliance on office order
dated 25.08.1999 Annexure A-1, whereby he was allowed
proficiency step-up w.e.f. 01.03.1998 and his pay was fixed at
Rs.8375/-. The issuance of this document has not been denied by
the respondents nor has any material been produced on record to
show that the office order Annexure A-1 was revoked or
withdrawn at any stage. The defence raised by the respondents is
that the petitioner had wrongly been granted proficiency step-up
w.e.f. 01.03.1992 and for such reason recoveries were due from
him. As noticed above, the petitioner has placed on record a copy
of judgment passed by this Court in CWP(T) No.10694 of 2008
dated 23.03.2010 and consequent office order issued by the
Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Kullu, whereby office
order dated 02.12.2002 was withdrawn. The respondents are
claiming the benefit of office order dated 02.12.2002, whereby the
proficiency step-up granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.1995 was
held to be bad. The said office order dated 02.12.2002 having
already been set aside by this Court and subsequently withdrawn
by the respondents, cannot be now used to the detriment of the
petitioner.
9. The petitioner has also placed on record his pay
fixation order after being promoted to the post of TGT(Arts). His
pay was fixed at Rs.8,650/-. The stand of the respondents that
the petitioner was drawing the same salary in the lower grade has
remained unsubstantiated. There also is no rebuttal to the pay
fixation order relied upon by the petitioner. The respondents have
not shown that the office order was revoked or withdrawn at any
stage. Thus, the denial of the claim of the petitioner by the
respondents does not appear to be having any legal backing.
The respondents, as a model employer, are required to consider
the grievances of its employees, strictly in terms of Rules and with
objective considerations, which in the instant case is missing.
10. The respondents have also raised a plea that the
petition was barred by limitation, as the same was not filed within
the period prescribed under the Administrative Tribunals Act. The
petition discloses that the petitioner was claiming arrears due for
the years 1998-1999 and he had been making repeated
representations even till February 2002. The petition was
instituted by the petitioner in June 2002 and for such reason his
claim cannot be said to be time barred. Even otherwise, this Court
is examining the case of the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, law of
limitation will not strictly apply. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, the petition also cannot be said to be barred by delay
and laches.
11. In light of above discussion, the petition is allowed.
Respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the case of the
petitioner, strictly in terms of observations made hereinabove and
to pass a speaking order within a period of 8 weeks from the date
of passing of this petition.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
1st April, 2025
(vt)
