continued against the post of HSST (Jr.) and was drawing salary only as HSST (Jr.) on the basis of orders of approval. It is submitted that the petitioner as well as the Manager had approached the respondents seeking up-gradation of the post as HSST on the basis of the workload available. But, the request was rejected. Ultimately, Ext.P10 order was passed on 21.8.2017 upgrading the post of HSST (Jr.) in Hindi available in the school as HSST. However, it is stated in Ext.P10 that the up-gradation and the creation of post would be prospective and that no benefits would be available retrospectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P10 relates only to up-gradation of post and creation of posts. It is the petitioner's contention that since there were 18 periods of work available from 2013 onwards, the school was entitled to a post of HSST and not of HSST (Jr.). The learned counsel also draws attention to Rule 1(d) of Chapter XXXII KER to contend that a teacher appointed in a higher secondary school to teach with a workload of 15 hours or more per week per subject is undoubtedly a Higher Secondary School Teacher and is entitled to all the benefits as such. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the admitted position that there were 18 periods of work from 2013 onwards, the petitioner was eligible for approval as HSST from 8.7.2013, that too, with all attendant benefits.
