Petitioner, an ad-hoc teacher, sought arrears of trained teacher salary from 2003, relying on a 1975 communication and a 2002 Government Order. Court held the Order only mandated posting, not salary, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3259 of 2021 Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suhel Ahmad Azmi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Personal affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further affidavit is required to be filed, matter be heard on merit. On the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard at the admission stage.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for the Board.
Petitioner by the instant writ petition seeks a direction to the respondents to pay arrears of salary admissible to a trained teacher of a primary school w.e.f. 2003 to 2016.
Petitioner is claiming to be an assistant teacher of a recognized primary school, namely, Bal Bidya Mandir, Mehnagar, District Azamgarh, run, managed and under the control of the Directorate of Social Welfare. Petitioner came to be appointed on temporary/ad-hoc basis in 1989 as an untrained teacher i.e. he was not having certificate of teachers training. The institution came under the grant-in-aid in 1994.
The service conditions of the petitioner is governed by the provisions of Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975.
It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner came to be regularized in the same year. It is not being disputed that Board of Basic Education U.P. Prayagraj, has no role either: (a) in making the appointment of the teachers of institution run by the social welfare department; (b) nor in their regularization or payment of salary is governed under the authority of Board, (c) only recognition part of such institution run under the Directorate of Social Welfare is dealt with by the respective Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (B.S.As.) at level of their respective districts.
It is urged that the third respondent, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj, has no control over the appointment of
the teachers/employees of the institution under the Directorate Social Welfare U.P.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying on the communication dated 20 June 2018, issued by the fifth respondent, District Basic Education Officer, District Azamgarh, addressed to the third respondent, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj, wherein, it is noted that pursuant to Government Order dated 24 April 2002, petitioner on having completed five years of service was posted as a trained teacher, therefore, it is urged that from the date of obtaining the teachers training certificate in 2016 petitioner is entitled to the salary admissible to a trained teacher w.e.f. 2003.
I have perused the Government Order dated 24 April 2002 with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
In the Government Order, it is nowhere mandated that untrained teachers would be entitled to salary of trained teacher on completing five years of service. The Government Order merely states that all untrained teachers who have completed five years of service would be posted as trained teachers but they are required to immediately obtain teachers training certificate.
In the back drop of the Government Order and on the strength of the communication dated 20 June 2018, it is urged that the petitioner is entitled to salary of trained teacher as he was posted as a trained teacher in 2003 and continued as such until 2016 i.e. on obtaining the teachers training certificate.
In my opinion, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is on misreading of the Government Order. The Government Order merely mandates that all untrained teachers having put in five years service be posted as trained teacher but are required to obtain teachers training certificate, immediately. The Government Order nowhere states or mandates that such teachers are entitled to salary admissible to the trained teachers.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any right according to untrained teachers to salary admissible to that of trained teacher on completing five years of service.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 K.K. Maurya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an untrained teacher posted as trained after five years of service is entitled to salary admissible to a trained teacher before obtaining the certificate.
Whether Government Order dated 24 April 2002 mandates salary entitlement for untrained teachers upon posting as trained teachers.
Satish Chandra
State Of U.P.
Suneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
