Nileshwar Kumar Goud vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1329 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                W.P.(S) No. 1064 of 2012

            Nileshwar Kumar Goud, son of Late R. B. Pathak, Resident of
            Mahalla-Devi Mandap Road, Hesal, P.O.-Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar,
            Town and District-Ranchi                   ...     ...      Petitioner
                                      Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand
            2. The Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand, Human Resources
               Development Department, having its office at Telephone Bhawan,
               Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
            3. The District Superintendent of Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi,
               having its office at Education Campus, Court Compound, Ranchi,
               P.O. Court Compound, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi
                                            ...       ...       Respondents
                                      ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Om Prakash Tiwari, Advocate

---

22/05.04.2022 Heard Mr. Anshuman Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "For issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of an order signed by Respondent No. 2 vide dated 03.02.2012 and issued vide memo No. 91 dated 06.02.2012 whereby and whereunder the petitioner's grievance for rectifying anomaly in fixation of his pay in Matric Trained Scale with effect from 24.06.1992 as his pay was wrongly fixed in the Matric Trained scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month as on the date of training i.e. 24.06.1992 his basic pay was Rs. 1300/- per month has been rejected/refused on baseless and frivolous ground of illegal appointment and also salary of the petitioner has also been stopped as the petitioner's appointment was made after adopting the procedure of law obtaining name from approved penal list prepared by the office of the Respondent No. 3 in the light of several Government's orders and be further pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the State Respondents particularly the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to make payment of the petitioner's salary with effect from September,2011 till date and current salary month to month basis and he also be directed to pay retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment etc."

Submission on behalf of the petitioner

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved by the wrong fixation of pay scale in Matric Trained Scale

w.e.f. 24.06.1992 the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court being W.P. (S) No. 567 of 2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2008 (Annexue-4) with a direction upon the Respondent No. 2 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order. Thereafter a detailed representation was filed before the Respondent No. 2 who has rejected the claim of the petitioner and has also held that the very appointment of the petitioner as back as in the year 1981 was illegal and directed that no further payment of salary/allowances be made to the petitioner and the amount which has been paid to the petitioner so far be recovered from the officers responsible for making payment to the petitioner for which a list of such persons be provided for taking appropriate action. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed in a government recognized aided middle school and the school was included in Education Improvement Programme (EIP) No. 1284. A letter dated 16.05.80 was issued by the state government stating that the teachers appointed in Aided Minority School under EIP Scheme will be treated as government teachers and shall be entitled to all benefits at par with nationalized schools. EIP teachers under deputation in the aided school be cancelled and they should be adjusted in Nationalized school and against the vacancy the management shall fill up the post after obtaining names from the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi. The respondent No. 3 in the light of the aforesaid Government's decision (Annexure-1) transferred one Bhuneshwar Prasad Vishwakarma who was deputed in the school to a nationalized school and against that vacancy the school management requested the Respondent No. 3 to furnish a name of I.sc trained candidate from Panel List available in his office so that the vacancy on account of transfer of E.I.P. teacher namely Bhuneshwar Prasad Vishwakarma be filled up. Consequently, the Respondent No. 3 furnished the name of the petitioner, I.sc candidate, and the appointment of the petitioner was made by the school management in the year 1981 and the Secretary of the school issued appointment letter bearing No. 18 dated 10.04.81 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner joined on 14.04.81 and since then he has been working and discharging his duties regularly efficiently, diligently, honestly and to the satisfaction of his

superiors. Thereafter the State Government, Department of Education in the year 1983 framed and issued another Notification being No. 573 dated 05.03.1983 in which, in Paragraph 2, it has been specifically mentioned that in case of non-availability of trained Science, Sanskrit and Urdu candidate the Panel of untrained candidates for appointment of Science teacher, Sanskrit Teacher and Urdu teacher also be prepared.

5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner joined the school w.e.f. 14.04.81 and the salary etc. was paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training by the respondents and the petitioner completed the training as per the instruction of the competent Authority of the State Government in the year 1992, but the pay of the petitioner was not revised, although the pay revision was made effective from time to time.

6. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was aggrieved by the non-action on the part of the respondents in not issuing the revised pay scale to the petitioner from time to time, which was the cause of action in the earlier writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 567 of 2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2008 directing the petitioner to file a representation before the Respondent No. 2 who in turn was to dispose of the representation within a period of 2 months by speaking order. In spite of such representation the order was not complied and petitioner filed Cont. Case (Civil) No. 226/2011 which was taken up on 8.02.2012 and order dated 6.2.2012 passed by Respondent No. 2 was brought on record and contempt was dropped with liberty to aggrieved person to challenge the said order. Consequently, present writ petition has been filed as the claim of the petitioner was rejected by impugned order dated 06.02.2012 (Annexure-6) and one of the grounds for rejection is that the initial appointment of the petitioner was itself illegal.

7. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has worked right from the year 1981 and has also drawn salary from time to time which was disbursed by the state government as salary to the petitioner against sanctioned post and pursuant to aforesaid order of appointment dated 14.04.81. After taking work from the petitioner for a long time the appointment of the petitioner has been declared as illegal by virtue

of the impugned order, that too at the fag end of the service carrier of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2012 and the appointment of the petitioner could not have been questioned or set aside without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without there being any proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that as per the impugned order, the petitioner was not granted 3rd, 4th as well as 5th pay revision and this fact is not in dispute in the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner having retired after working for long 31 years cannot be thrown out in the manner as it has been done in the present case by the impugned order for no fault on his part. He further submits that even if it is assumed that certain norms/guidelines were not followed at the stage of appointment of the petitioner on 14.04.81, but the same cannot be reopened after completion of 31 years of service by the petitioner. He submits that there is no allegation of fraud or connivance or any role of the petitioner in the so-called error, if any, committed by the respondents. The learned counsel has also submitted that once the respondents started paying salary to the petitioner, there was no occasion for the petitioner to doubt about the legality of the appointment of the petitioner at any point of time. He submits that if the petitioner would not have filed the writ petition for giving pay revisions or if the petitioner would not have filed representation pursuant to the order dated 03.07.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 567 of 2002, the petitioner would have very well retired peacefully and would also have got the pension. He reiterates that the respondents having taken work from the petitioner, cannot be permitted to disturb the original appointment of the petitioner at the fag end of his service, particularly when, there is no allegation of any fraudulent act or omission on the part of the petitioner or on the part of the institution in which the petitioner was working. He submits that the impugned order has sought to fix the responsibility amongst the officers of the state government who had ultimately paid the salary and other allowances to the petitioner while working in aided middle school. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in M.S. Mudhol (DR) versus S.D. Halegkar reported in 1993 SCC (Labour

and Service) 986 and submits that under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the incumbent should not be disturbed after long years when it was a default on the part of the Director of Education in illegally approving the appointment of such incumbent though he did not have the requisite academic qualification as a result of which he continued to hold the post. The learned counsel has also referred to another judgment passed by this court in W.P. (S) 3371 of 2006 as contained in Annexure-8 to the affidavit dated 30.08.2013 filed by the petitioner.

Submission on behalf of the respondents

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner itself is illegal and therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He also submits that the moment it came to light of the respondents, though while considering the matter of revision of pay of the petitioner, it has been held by the impugned order that the appointment of the petitioner is illegal. During the course of argument, it is not in dispute that no opportunity as such was given to the petitioner prior to holding the appointment of the petitioner as illegal. The learned counsel further submits that the appointment has been held to be illegal as the petitioner had himself given an undertaking dated 02.03.1984 before the authorities, which has been quoted in the impugned order itself, stating that if at the time of consideration of proposition statement regarding fixation of his pay, his appointment is found to be illegal, then he would be returning the entire amount which has been paid to him. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have taken a sympathetic view and have not directed for recovery of the amount from the petitioner, rather they have asked for recovery of the amount from the concerned erring officer. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the matter of illegal appointment, no mercy be shown to the petitioner. He has also referred to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 in the case of the State of Bihar and Others versus Devendra Sharma decided on 17.10.2019 and has referred to para 37 to submit that once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and

is nonest in the eye of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise. However during the course of argument upon specific query by this court, the learned counsel has not been able to point any material from record showing any allegation of forgery or fraud being played by the petitioner or the institution in which the petitioner was working while placing the full text of the impugned order. The learned counsel has also referred to judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Ravindra Pandey versus State of Bihar reported in 2010 SCC Online Patna 1292 equivalent to (2010) 4 PLJR 1073 and has referred to para 44 of the said judgment to submit that once the appointment has been found to be illegal and in teeth of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the courts have declined to grant relief to such persons. He also submits that it is not in dispute from the records of this case that the mandate for appointment of teacher in middle school, as provided in the circular dated 15.11.1978, has not been followed in the present case as admittedly the petitioner was not trained on the date of his appointment in the year 1981. He further submits that the circular of the year 1983 (Annexure-3) does not apply to aided middle school. The petitioner was appointed from the panel, which according to the petitioner, was prepared in the light of Annexure-3, is not applicable to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed and the petitioner is neither entitled to any revision of pay scale nor entitled to any arrears of salary nor entitled to any pensionary benefit on account of his initial appointment being illegal and dehors the provisions of various circular issued by the State Government.

Findings of this Court

9. The undisputed foundational facts from the records of this case read with the impugned order are as under: -

a. The school, namely, Shradhanand Sevasharam Middle School, Ratu Road, Ranchi is an aided middle school and was included in Education Improvement Programme (EIP).

b. A letter dated 16.05.80 (Annexure-1) was issued by the state government stating that the teachers posted in Aided Minority

School under EIP Scheme will be treated as government teachers and shall be entitled to all benefits at par with nationalized schools. Continuation of EIP teachers under deputation in the aided school was to be discontinued and they were to be adjusted in Nationalized school. The vacancy arising out of such adjustment was to be filled up by the management of the school after obtaining name from the office of the District Superintendent of Education from the panel available in the office of the District Superintendent of Education. This decision does not mention anything about requirement of such persons being trained persons.

c. Consequently, the respondent No. 3 transferred one Bhuneshwar Prasad Vishwakarma, who was deputed in the school, to a nationalized school.

d. Against the said vacancy, the petitioner, whose name appeared in the panel of untrained I.Sc teachers prepared by the Respondent no.3 at serial no. 20 , was forwarded to the school school management and the petitioner was appointed by the school management vide appointment letter bearing No. 18 dated 10.04.81 (Annexure-2) .

e. The petitioner was appointed on the basis of the panel prepared by the District Superintendent of Education of Untrained I.sc teachers in the year 1976 where the petitioner was placed at serial No. 20 and the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by the Secretary of the school namely Shradhanand Sevasharam Middle School, Ratu Road, Ranchi vide letter No. 18 dated 10.04.81.

f. The petitioner joined the school on 14.04.81 and since then he has been working and discharging his duties without any complaint from any corner. The petitioner has also been receiving the salary from time to time by way of aid to the aforesaid middle school.

g. The petitioner has been working against vacant sanctioned post and as per the impugned order itself the petitioner has been receiving salary in the scale of Rs. 535-765 in terms of memo No. 688 dated 31.03.1983. As per the clarification received

from the Respondent no. 3, which has been mentioned in the impugned order, in terms of clause 2(gha) (5) of the aforesaid memo No. 688 dated 31.03.1983, teachers appointed on or after 01.04.1981 were to be treated as appointed on the basic pay scale of 4th pay revision.

h. The impugned order reveals that clarification given by the Respondent no.3, inter alia, revealed that a letter no. 857 dated 13.05.1988 was issued by the Deputy Director of Primary Education, Government of Bihar stating that the pay-scale of the petitioner was not fixed under 4th pay revision so the petitioner was treated to be appointed as untrained teacher. The letter no. 857 dated 13.05.1988 was neither communicated to the petitioner nor to the managing committee of the school and the same was a communication from the Deputy Director of Primary Education, Government of Bihar which was followed by issuance of letter dated 28.10.1988 (Annexure-9) sending the petitioner and many others for training.

i. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was sent for training vide letter dated 28.10.1988 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi and he completed and passed his training on 24.06.1992. j. The petitioner became aggrieved by the fixation of his pay scale in Matric Trained Scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and his specific grievance was that his pay should have been Rs. 1400/- per month with effect from the date he completed his training i.e. on 24.06.1992 instead of Rs.1200/- per month as fixed by the State Authorities.

k. On account of non-redressal of his grievance regarding pay scale, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 567 of 2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2008 with the following directions: -

"After hearing the arguments at length, both the counsel for the parties have agreed that a representation will be moved on behalf of the petitioner to the Director, Primary Education within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation by a speaking order. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs."

l. The petitioner filed representation dated 13.08.2008 raising his grievance regarding improper fixation of pay; the petitioner had appeared before the respondent No. 2 on 12.11.2009 and produced the necessary papers, but the respondent No. 2 did not pass any order till April 2011.

m. In such circumstances the petitioner filed contempt petition bearing Cont. Case (Civil) No. 226 of 2011 which was taken up on 08.02.2012 and on that day the State counsel had informed the court that respondent No. 2 had passed the reasoned order on 06.02.2012 in compliance of order dated 03.07.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 567 of 2002 and on that day the reasoned order was handed over to the counsel for the petitioner and the contempt proceeding was dropped with liberty to the petitioner to assail the order, in case the petitioner was aggrieved by the same.

n. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the reasoned order on 06.02.2012.

o. It is not in dispute that till the stage of disposal of the writ petition before this court W.P. (S) No. 567 of 2002, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents was in connection with correct fixation of pay scale and there was no dispute in connection with the appointment of the petitioner.

10. The respondent No. 2 did not comply the order of this court dated 03.07.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 567 of 2002 till 06.2.2012. Admittedly, at no stage, the appointment of the petitioner was in dispute and for the first time the appointment has been declared to be illegal by the impugned order dated 06.02.2012 that too without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without initiating any proceedings against the petitioner or the management of the school.

11. The impugned order clearly reveals that admittedly, as per Respondent no. 2, there is no error/suppression/ misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner or the management of the school and the petitioner was appointed as his the name was forwarded by the Respondent no.3 and the name of the petitioner was at serial number 20 of the available panel of the year 1976 and such appointment was

made pursuant to the decision dated 16.05.1980 (Annexure-1) and apparently , the decision dated 16.05.1980 did not mention any thing about the requirement of training.

12. The impugned order declared the appointment of the petitioner illegal by referring to department letter no. 3915 dated 15.11.1978 which provided that no untrained teacher can be appointed in aided schools after 01.01.1971.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed by the panel of 1976 available with the Respondent no.3 and the decision dated 16.05.1980 (Annexure-1) neither referred to any particular panel nor referred to department letter no. 3915 dated 15.11.1978 nor mentioned about any requirement of training for the persons to be appointed. It is further not the case of the respondents that any panel was available with the respondent no. 3 which was prepared after 1976 much less any panel prepared after issuance of departmental letter no. 3915 dated 15.11.1978. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner has been done in compliance with the decision of the government dated 16.05.1980 (Annexure-1) but not in accordance with departmental letter no. 3915 dated 15.11.1978, which is neither referred in the decision dated 16.05.1980 (Annexure-1) nor its content i.e requirement of training is referred in the decision dated 16.05.1980 (Annexure-1). The departmental letter no. 3915 dated 15.11.1978 reveals that a decision was taken that no approval will be granted to the untrained teachers of aided linguistic or religious minority schools, who were appointed after 01.01.1971. The facts also reveal that the petitioner was not only appointed by the school on the basis of name sent by the Respondent no. 3 from the panel available with the Respondent no. 3 which was in terms of decision of the government dated 16.05.1980 (Annexure-1) ; the petitioner was treated as untrained teacher and was sent for training by none less than the Deputy Director of Education / Regional Deputy Director of Education and the petitioner successfully completed the training and continued to work in the school and received admissible pay till passing of the impugned order dated 06.02.2012 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2012.

14. The present case is not a case where the school has made appointment and sent the matter for approval of the government for

receiving grant in aid. Rather, the appointment of the petitioner has been made on the basis of name sent by the respondent no. 3 to the school pursuant to the decision dated 16.05.1980 (Annexure-1) which was a follow up of Education Improvement Programme (EIP) of the government. As per the decision dated 16.05.1980 (Annexure-1) , EIP teachers under deputation in the aided school were to be discontinued and they were to be adjusted in Nationalized school. The vacancy arising out of such adjustment was to be filled up by the management of the school after obtaining name from the office of the District Superintendent of Education from the panel available in the office of the District Superintendent of Education. This decision dated 16.05.1980 (Annexure-1) neither mentioned anything about requirement of trained teachers nor referred to departmental letter dated 15.11.1978 which provides that no recognition or approval of the appointment of untrained teacher would be given in any linguistic or religious minority school who have been appointed after 01.01.1971. Here is a case where the appointment of petitioner, whose name appeared at serial no. 20 in the panel of 1976 available with the Respondent no. 3 has been practically imposed upon the school in terms of decision dated 16.05.1980 (Annexure-1) which did not prescribe any requirement of training and the only condition mentioned was that the name should be forwarded by the Respondent no.3 from the panel maintained by the Respondent no. 3 and even the year of the panel was not mentioned. It is not the case of the respondents that any subsequent panel was available much less panel after issuance of departmental letter dated 15.11.1978 and accordingly, the name of the petitioner was wrongly sent by the Respondent no. 3 from 1976 panel. There is no allegation of fraud etc. on the part of the petitioner or management of the school or even on the part of the officers of the government. In the aforesaid circumstances, where the appointment has been made strictly as per decision dated 16.05.1980 (Annexure-1), it is not open to the respondents to declare the appointment of the petitioner illegal after expiry of 32 years of service of the petitioner, that too without granting any opportunity of hearing on the point of legality or illegality of the appointment of the petitioner and without issuing any

show cause to the petitioner and without initiating any proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order declaring the appointment of the petitioner as illegal is fit to be set-aside under the facts and circumstances of this case.

15. In view of the aforesaid findings, the judgments relied upon by the respondents do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as the finding of appointment of the petitioner being illegal is fit to be set-aside.

16. The reliance of respondents upon the undertaking of the petitioner in the impugned order i.e if at the stage of approval of the preposition statement of the petitioner at Patna the appointment of the petitioner is found to be illegal for any reason , then he would return the salary , also is of no help to the respondents as the petitioner was never informed about any objection with regard to the preposition statement of the petitioner and in fact the petitioner was paid salary till passing of the impugned order and even in the impugned order , no fault of the petitioner has been pointed out, rather the officers of the department have been alleged to be at fault, against whom action/recovery has also been recommended .

17. The petitioner has brought on record a judgement passed by this court in WP(S) no. 3371 of 2006 dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure-8) in the case of Anee Agnesh Murmu versus State of Jharkhand where the preposition statement of the petitioners was rejected by the impugned orders solely by referring to the aforesaid circular letter dated 15.11.1978 regarding requirement of training of teachers for approval of appointments in aided schools prior to 01.01.1971. In the said case also, the petitioners were sent for training vide directions issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and successfully completed the training and continued to work in the respective schools. It has been held in para 11 to 13 of the aforesaid judgement in the case of Anee Agnesh Murmu versus State of Jharkhand (supra) as under: -

"11. It is also not in dispute that all these four petitioners have undergone in house training pursuant to the direction passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, as referred to hereinabove vide Annexure-7, 8 and 9 series passed on 30.3.2000, 9.12.1999, 2.8.1999. After they had undergone training successfully, which was made effective from 3.5.2002, the minority

school placed them in the category of matric trained teachers and made recommendation for approval of the preposition statement, which was duly forwarded by the District Superintendent of Education to the Directorate of Primary Education. The said preposition statement in respect of all these petitioners have been rejected by the impugned order as contained Annexure-12 dated 19.7.2005 and Annexure-C series to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents dated 22.6.2012, which has been impugned subsequently by an I.A. by petitioners. The rejection obviously is based upon reliance upon the letter dated 15.11.1978, which prohibits approval of services of untrained teachers in linguistic or religious minority school appointed after 1.1.1971. The same circular was also under consideration in a case decided by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P(S) No. 4439 of 2000 reported in [2003 (1) JCR 583 (Jhr)]. The learned single Judge of this Court found that it was too late after 19 years in the said case to allow the respondents to reopen the matters when the petitioner had worked continuously for so long and the order had been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners.

12. The order of the Director Primary Education, in the wake of the aforesaid facts, which have been narrated herein-above that the petitioners have been allowed to undergo in house training by order of the R.D.D. himself while in service, cannot be said to sustainable in law as well as on facts. The reliance of the respondents upon a letter dated 15.11.1978 in a matter relating to the appointment of the untrained teachers in the Santhal Paragana division, in the circumstances which was also taken note of by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.5813/1997(P) in the case of petitioner No.1, is, therefore, far fetched and not a rational ground to refuse the preposition statement of these four petitioners, who have been worked for quite long period since 1988,1990 and 1992 respectively in the said schools.

13. In these circumstances, therefore, the impugned order dated 19.7.2005 and the orders dated 22.6.2012 passed in respect of the petitioners' cannot be sustained in law and on facts and are accordingly, quashed. Consequently, the respondent-the Director, Primary Education shall take fresh decision in the matter in respect of approval of preposition statement of the petitioners as also for release of such salary of the petitioners in their respective pay scales from the due dates from which they are entitled within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms."

18. In yet another judgement passed by this court in WP(S) No. 1319 of 2013 (Dwarika Nath Mishra versus The State of Jharkhand) decided on 24.01.2014 , in somewhat similar reason for refusal to fix the pay , as the present case, and additionally it was pointed out that there was discrimination qua another similarly situated person , this court quashed the decision refusing to fix the pay which was declined

by the authority on the ground that the petitioner was untrained and his appointment was in violation of aforesaid departmental letter dated 15.11.1978.

19. Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgments, this court finds that the decision of the authorities to refuse to fix pay on the basis of the department letter dated 15.11.1978 to interfere with the services/ pay fixation of teachers at a much belated stage has not been accepted as a good ground and such decisions have been quashed with consequential reliefs.

20. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the impugned order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the Respondent no.2 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Consequently, the Respondent no.2 shall take immediate steps for release of such salary of the petitioner in the respective pay scale from the due date from which the petitioner is so entitled and also take appropriate steps/ issue appropriate directions for payment of post-retirement benefits to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

21. This writ petition is accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid directions.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit