Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/599/2023 on 2 November, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No.660 of 2022
With
WPSS No.599 of 2023
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, learned Standing Counsel for
the State.
3. Since, both these writ petitions involve the similar
controversy regarding the sanction of Selection Grade Pay
of ₹4800/- w.e.f. date of entitlement of the petitioners i.e.,
after ten years of satisfactory and continuous service,
therefore both the writ petitions are being decided by this
common judgment. For the purpose of brevity and
convenience, facts of WPSS No. 660 of 2022 shall be
mentioned for consideration.
4. Facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are
that petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher
in Government Primary School vide order dated 23.11.1998
and he joined on 30.11.1998. Subsequently, the petitioner
was promoted to the next higher post of 'Assistant Teacher'
in Senior Basic School vide order dated 26.12.2006 and he
joined on the promotional post on 27.12.2006 under the
provision of Uttarakhand Subordinate Education (Trained
Graduate) Rules, 2006, which was notified on 28.07.2006
and the petitioner was adjusted on the post of Assistant
Teacher, L.T. Grade on a pay-scale of ₹9300-34800/- and
Grade Pay of ₹4600/-, on the basis of the option exercised
by him vide order dated 22.01.2014. The name of the
petitioner is at Sr. No.7 of this order of adjustment, which
has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure no.3 to the
writ petition.
5. The controversy involved in this writ petition
cropped up when the petitioner completed ten years of
regular service and he claimed for Selection Grade Pay of
₹4800/- from the respondent-Department on the ground that
he has continued ten years of regular service, in the year
2016, and he is entitled to get the selection grade reckoning
the service rendered by him in Government Primary and
Government Junior High School. Petitioner has submitted
the proposal through proper channel for grant of selection
grade as stated above.
6. The said proposal was returned back by District
Education Officer, Almora, on 19.02.2020, on the ground
that since there is no direction from the higher authority,
the petitioner cannot be granted selection grade as asked for
by him. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action, on the
part of the respondents, for denial of selection grade to the
petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. A counter affidavit has been called from the
respondents and the respondents have filed their counter
affidavit.
8. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated by the
State that since the petitioner was promoted on the post of
Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade vide order dated 22.01.2014,
the previous service rendered by him shall not be counted
for the purpose of grant of selection grade. It is specifically
pleaded in the counter affidavit that the adjustment of the
petitioner, on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade, as
Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade vide adjustment order dated
22.01.2014. This contention is based on the Government
Order dated 06.09.2019.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that similar controversy have come up before this Court in
several writ petitions and this Court has been pleased to
allow those writ petitions where a clear cut mandate was
given by this Court that the service rendered by such
teachers in Government Primary and Government Junior
High School shall be counted for the purpose of selection
as well as the promotional grade and in those matters such
relief has already been granted. Reliance has been placed
by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the judgment
rendered in WPSS No.602 of 2014, Manu Dhondiyal Vs.
State of Uttarakhand whereby several writ petitions have
been allowed by this Court involving the same controversy.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that the said judgment attained finality as the matter was
taken up in special appeal and thereafter to Hon'ble Apex
Court, but the said judgment passed by learned Single
Judge in the case of Manu Dhondiyal (supra) was affirmed
since his case is squarely covered by the aforesaid
judgment, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
11. Attention of this Court was drawn by learned
counsel for the petitioners to another judgment passed by
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein even the
Government Order dated 06.09.2019 was also discussed
and dealt with and that writ petition has also been allowed
by the Co-ordinate Bench being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 292
of 2021, Ramesh Chandra Bhatt Vs. State of Uttarakhand
vide judgment dated 21.09.2021.
12. In this view of the matter, this Court finds no reason
to deviate from the judgment and order passed by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court. Moreover, this Court itself
relying upon the judgment of Manu Dhondiyal (supra)
have decided and passed several orders regarding the
controversy wherein it has been held that service rendered
prior to the adjustment of the petitioner shall be counted for
the purpose of granting the selection grade as well as
promotional grade to such teachers.
13. In this view of the matter, the writ petitions are
hereby allowed. A mandamus is issued to respondent no.3-
Additional Director of Education (Secondary), Kumaon
Division, Nainital to grant the selection grade to the
petitioners from the date of their entitlement when they
have completed ten years of service including the service
rendered in the Government Primary School and Junior
Basic Schools within a period of not later than three months
from the date of passing of this order.
14. No order as to costs.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.11.2023
SK
