Higher Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a proposed grant of higher pay scale to a petitioner who claimed twelve years of continuous service as a trained Graduate Teacher.
Impugned communication quashed; proposal for higher pay scale deemed granted; monetary benefits to be released within four months.
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.
1 23-wp4278-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4278 OF 2016
Dnyaneshwar s/o. Dattatraya
Naladkar, Age : 56 years,
Occu. Service as Assistant Teacher,
r/o. C/o. Shri Jemla Naik Primary
Ashram School, at Saknur Tanda,
Post Barhali, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
2. The Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare, Latur Division, Latur 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Nanded 4. Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School, Saknur Tanda, Post Barhali, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded Through its Head Master ..Respondents
Mr.A.V.Patil (Indrale), Advocate for petitioners
Mr.A.A.Jagatkar AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
2 23-wp4278-16.odt
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 06, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
With consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing at admission stage.
3.By this petition, the petitioner is
questioning legality and validity of the
communication dated 27.06.2013 issued by the
Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Nanded
rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for grant
of time bound higher pay scale upon completion of
twelve years continuous service as trained
Graduate Teacher.
4.The petitioner contends that he possesses
qualification of M.Com, B.Ed. and was appointed as
trained Graduate Teacher on 22.06.1998. Initially,
he was put on probation for two years in the pay
3 23-wp4278-16.odt
scale of Rs.1400-2600. On completion of probation
period, the services of petitioner have been
confirmed and the petitioner has been granted
revision of the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 of the
post of trained Graduate Teacher. It is contended
that in the year 2004, the petitioner has also
acquired D.Ed. qualification. The petitioner
contends that he is discharging functions of
trained Graduate Teacher from the date of
appointment i.e. 22.06.1998. He has completed
twelve years service in the year 2010 and as such,
as per the policy prescribed by the Government, he
is entitled to claim benefits of the higher pay
scale.
5.The request made by the petitioner has
been turned down by the Assistant Commissioner,
Social Welfare, Nanded on the ground that the
petitioner has not completed continuous service as
a trained Graduate Teacher for a period twelve
years.
4 23-wp4278-16.odt
6.The Reasons recorded for turning down the
proposal appears to be erroneous on the face of
record. On perusal of the staff approval order
dated 21.06.1999, it appears that there was
vacancy of a trained Graduate Teacher in the year
1999 and that the petitioner has been appointed as
against the said vacancy. The order of approval
accorded by the Special District Social Welfare
Officer, Nanded on 29.10.2002 records the pay
scale admissible to the petitioner as Rs.5500-9000
i.e. the pay scale prescribed for a trained
Graduate Teacher. The petitioner is drawing the
pay scale prescribed for a trained Graduate
Teacher from the date of his appointment.
Therefore, there shall be no controversy as
regards the acquisition of qualification by the
petitioner since he holds the degrees of Master in
Commerce and Bachelor of Education on the date of
appointment.
5 23-wp4278-16.odt
7.As per the policy prescribed by the State
Government, 25% posts out of the total available
posts can be permitted to be filled in from
amongst the trained Graduate Teachers. The
petitioner claims that he fulfills the condition
of qualification for being treated as a trained
Graduate Teacher and hence, he is entitled to be
included in 25% posts which carry the pay scale of
trained Graduate Teacher.
8.Our attention is invited to the judgment
in the case of State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs.
Tukaram Trymbak Chaudhari and ors., 2007(2)
All.M.R.(SC)933. In paragraph 17 of the judgment,
the Supreme Court has observed thus :-
“ 17 . We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. Having particular regard to the fact that though standards 5 to 7 were attached to both primary schools as well as secondary schools, these classes in
6 23-wp4278-16.odt
fact, represented the middle schools for which different standards were being followed. Conscious of such disparity in respect of teachers who are similarly situated but were treated differently on account of their being attached to primary schools and/or secondary schools, the State Government resolved to eliminate such differences and to make provisions for trained graduate teachers to be upgraded to a higher scale to the extent of 25% of the posts. The said Resolution consciously refers to in service graduate primary teachers who were eligible for appointment to the posts in the increased pay-scale. In fact, one of the conditions for appointment of in service graduate primary teachers to the converted post carrying the higher pay-scale was that such teacher should have obtained a degree in Arts or Science and had also obtained a degree in education namely, B.Ed. While adopting the aforesaid Resolution,
7 23-wp4278-16.odt
the Government was, therefore, fully aware of the fact there were graduate teachers teaching in standards 5 to 7 in the primary schools. This fact was also referred to by the Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment under appeal. It has been mentioned that one of the contentions raised on behalf of writ petitioners was that in terms of Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1982, the petitioners were entitled to be appointed and continued as trained teachers in B.Ed. scale.”
The policy formulated by the State Government of
earmarking 25% for trained Graduate Teachers in
the schools imparting education from 5th to 7th
standards has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
9.In view of the reasons recorded above, we
are of the considered opinion that respondent no.3
-AssistantCommissioner,SocialWelfare
Department, Nanded has committed error while
8 23-wp4278-16.odt
issuing the impugned communication turning down
the proposal tendered by the Institution seeking
approval for grant of higher pay scale in favour
of the petitioner. The impugned communication
appears to have been passed without consideration
of record of the case and as such, deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly,
quashed and aside. The proposal submitted by the
Institution for approval for granting higher pay
scale to the petitioner on completion of twelve
years of service, shall be deemed to have been
granted. The monetary benefits accruable to the
petitioner shall be released within a period of
four months from today.
10.Rule made absolute accordingly. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]
kbp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Ejucational Assistant is entitled to grant of time bound higher pay scale upon completion of twelve years continuous service as trained Graduate Teacher.
Whether the impugned communication rejecting the proposal for higher pay scale deserves to be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Tukaram Trymbak Chaudhari and ors.Referred¶27
State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Tukaram Trymbak Chaudhari and ors., 2007(2) All.M.R.(SC)933
Dnyaneshwar s/o. Dattatraya Naladkar
The State of Maharashtra
The Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare
The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Nanded
Shri Jemla Naik Primary Ashram School
R.M. BORDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court