Allowed

Ms. B. Saritha v. The Chairman, A.P. Residential Educational Institutions

Telangana HC26 Aug 2011WP/21210/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition challenging the denial of pay scale benefits to teachers appointed in Vidyalayas. The court held that denying benefits based on place of employment was arbitrary. The petitioners, selected in 2005 and appointed to Vidyalayas, received equal treatment as was the Government directive, requiring the extension of pay scales from G.O.Ms.No.99 and consequential proceedi

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the pay scales as provided for under G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 16-07-2011, and consequential proceedings dated 18-07-2011 t

Ms. B. Saritha Vs The Chairman, A.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.21210 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The Secretary of the A.P Residential Educational Institutions Society, the 3^rd respondent herein (for short ‘the Society’) issued notification dated 16-05-2005, inviting applications to fill the posts of post-graduate and trained-graduate teachers in various subjects in Telugu and English Medium Schools. The petitioners and number of others submitted applications. A written test was conducted and merit list was prepared. The Society had agreed to run and maintain Kasturiba Gandhi Balikala Vidyalaya (for short

¶5

‘the Vidyalaya’) under the Scheme sponsored by the Central Government. The petitioners herein were issued orders of appointment dated 01-08-2005, as Trained or Post-graduate Teachers, as the case may be, and were posted to work in the Vidyalayas at different parts of the State.

¶6

For the subsequent years, selection process was not undertaken for appointment of teachers. However, from the remainder of the list, prepared on the basis of the test, conducted in the year 2005, several candidates were appointed and posted in the institutions, established by the Society.

¶7

The appointments of the teachers, made by the Society were contractual in nature, and consolidated salary of Rs.6,000/- per month was stipulated. Number of writ petitions were filed by the teachers and their unions, to extend them the benefit of pay scales. After prolonged correspondence and deliberations, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 16-07-2011, directing that

¶8

the teachers appointed on contract basis by the

¶9

Society be extended the benefit of pay scales. The Society issued consequential proceedings dated 18-07-2011, implementing the pay scales only in respect of teachers, that are working in the residential institutions, established by them, and not the Vidyalayas. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.99 to the petitioners.

¶10

The petitioners contend that it is the Society, that initiated the selection process and appointed them as teachers and that at no point of time there is any privity of contract between the Vidyalayas or other agencies, and themselves. They contend that the teachers appointed by the same agency, through the same notification, cannot be accorded differential treatment. It is also their case that they stand on a higher footing, inasmuch as their appointments are made immediately after the notification, whereas the persons in whose favour the benefits were extended, through G.O.Ms.No.99, and other consequential proceedings; are appointed from out of the remainder of the list, that too, after the list lapsed in the ordinary course of time.

¶11

On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioners were appointed to work in a totally different category of institutions and their service conditions are different from those, that are working in the schools, established by the Society. It is further stated that the petitioners have executed bonds, agreeing for their being posted in the Vidyalayas, and they cannot draw comparison with those, who are working in the institutions, directly established by the Society.

¶12

Heard Sri M. Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for School Education for

¶13

respondent No.1, and Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶14

A perfect and thorough selection process was initiated by the Society by issuing a notification dated 16-05-2005 for the postgraduate and trained-graduate teachers in various subjects, and for non-teaching posts. Sanction of the Government was obtained before the notification was issued. Reservation in favour of various categories was strictly followed. On the basis of the selection undertaken by the Committee, merit list was prepared. Nowhere in the notification it was mentioned that the selections are for appointment in any other institutions. It was rather incidental, that the petitioners came to be posted in Vidyalayas. The fact remains that the Appointing Authority, which issued the orders of appointment, is the Secretary of the Society, i.e. the

¶15

3^rd respondent.

¶16

It is no doubt true that the notification as well as the orders of appointment clearly mention that the appointment is contractual in nature and on consolidated salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. Once the petitioners agreed to work with that condition, they cannot be permitted to insist on grant of pay scales, if the matter ended with their appointment, and if no further notification has taken place.

¶17

It is not in dispute that from out of the remainder of the list prepared in pursuance of the notification dated 16-05-2005, teachers were appointed in the year 2007, on consolidated pay of Rs.6,000/per month, and on contractual basis. They however were posted in the schools established by the Society. Many representations have poured in from all the teachers appointed

¶18

on contractual basis, irrespective of their place of work, claiming the benefit of pay scales. Even the Society did not differentiate in forwarding the request to the Government. Further, G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 16-07-2011 issued by the Government does not differentiate between the teachers working in different categories of institutions. The G.O. applies to ‘Post-Graduate Teacher and Trained Graduate Teacher’. Obviously the benefit is to the teachers appointed by the Society. Even the consequential proceedings dated 18-07-2011 do not differentiate the institutions. It is only at the time of implementation of the proceedings, that

¶19

a differentiation is made between the teachers working in Vidyalayas and those, working in the residential institutions, established by the Society. There is absolutely no justification for such differentiation. In the orders of appointment issued to the petitioners, except that they were required to work in the Vidyalayas, it was not mentioned that they were employees of other agency. If that were to be so, there was no necessity for the Society to sign and issue the orders of appointment. It is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioners have been sent on deputation or were transferred to any other establishment. The petitioners stand on a higher footing, since they are the persons, who are selected and appointed immediately after notification.

¶20

In the ordinary course of the things, the selection list issued in pursuance of a notification would lapse, once the notified posts are filled up. The respondents however continued that list and appointed teachers two years thereafter from that list. The benefit of pay scale was extended to the teachers, that were appointed subsequently, whereas those are appointed against individual vacancies were

¶21

denied the benefit. The action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

¶22

Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the pay scales, as provided for under G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 16-07-2011, and consequential proceedings dated 18-07-2011 to the teachers that are appointed from out of the selection list prepared in pursuance of the notification 16-05-2005, on par with the teachers, who were extended similar benefit.

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶25

Dt.26-08-2011.

¶26

Ms. B. Saritha v. The Chairman, A.P. Residential Educational Institutions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. B. Saritha v. The Chairman, A.P. Residential Educational Institutions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Subramanyam, Vs Sapathagiri Grameena Bank, (Sponsored by Indian Bank)

Galla Srihari Babu Vs The food Corporation of India, Rep.byits

Thandeva Balaiah Vs Kalla Venkata Narayana

S. Pratab Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mukthukuri Venkata Rao Vs Ramadugu Venkateswarlu

Narisetty Kotaiah (died) Vs Addanki Masthan Rao