Partly allowed

Y.Jaya Raju Guntur Dist and 6 Ors. v. S.A.P. Its Prl Sec to Govt Edu DEPTAND2

Telangana HC21 Aug 2012WP/17647/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by six teachers and their school for arrears of grant-in-aid salary. The court held the claim for B.Ed Assistants was invalid as the school was later upgraded. However, it granted arrears for four SGBT teachers from 1986 to 1989, finding no limitation bar. Petition allowed in part.

What did the court decide?

The four eligible SGBT teachers be paid arrears of grant-in-aid for the period from 01.03.1986 to 31.10.1989.

Y.Jaya Raju Guntur Dist and 6 Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 17647 OF 2001

¶5

Between:

¶6

Y.Jaya Raju and six others … Petitioners

¶7

AND

¶8

State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Education Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and two others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

This Court made the following:

¶11

O R D E R :

¶12

This writ petition is instituted by six teachers in the company of Don Bosco High School, parent institution as the seventh petitioner, seeking writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting the payment of arrears of grant-in-aid salary for the period 01.09.1985 to 31.10.1989 as bad.

¶13

The 7^th petitioner school was initially established as an Elementary School at Yerrabalem, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District and it started functioning from the academic session 1976. The school was established for the purpose of imparting education to the handicapped orphans who have been left uncared for. The District Educational Officer, Guntur, through his proceedings Rc.No.306/A5/76, dated 17.12.1976 accorded permission for establishing an unaided Elementary School with effect from 02.08.1976 for running classes I to V subject to the conditions and stipulations provided therein. The District Educational Officer, Guntur, by his proceedings F.W.L Dis.No.183/A5/77, dated 12.05.1978, after examining the proposals submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Mangalagiri, accorded temporary recognition for class VI in the school for a period of two years commencing from the academic year 1977-78. By a similar proceeding dated 22.02.1979, the District Educational Officer, Guntur, based upon the recommendations of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Mangalagiri, accorded temporary recognition for class VII for a period of two years commencing from the academic year 1978. Thus, by the academic session started in the year 1978, the school in question has become an Upper Primary School imparting education up to VII standard. As could be made out from the representation dated 9^th February, 2001 submitted by the 7^th petitioner school to the State Government, the Upper Primary School has been converted into High School from the academic year 1988 onwards. As of now, it is functioning as High School imparting education up to X standard.

¶14

The State Government, as a policy measure, decided to admit certain additional sections and several posts in several Educational Institutions to grantin-aid which were opened prior to 1.4.1977 and orders were passed by the State Government through its proceedings G.O.Ms.No.344 Education (SSE) Department, dated 22.07.1985 admitting to grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1985. Subsequently, another policy was announced by the State Government through G.O.Ms.No.238 Education Department dated 27.05.1986 deciding to admit all schools which were opened after 01.04.1977 with the

¶15

permission of the competent authority and who have completed the minimum period of their existence of five years in respect of boys schools and coeducational schools, three years in respect of girls schools and four years in respect of Oriental schools which were in existence as on 01.09.1985 to be admitted to grant-in-aid. The case of the petitioners is that the school in question was in existence as on 01.09.1985 and it has already completed five years of existence, from the academic session 1978 when it started imparting education up to VII standard. It is therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the Upper Primary School which satisfied the stipulations contained in the policy measure of the State Government announced through G.O.Ms.No.238 Education dated 27.05.1986 should be admitted to grant-in-aid with effect from 01.09.1985. It is also their case that the necessary proposals have been sent after due verification and they were receiving the consideration of the State Government at which point of time, the State Government started receiving enormous complaints with regard to grant-in-aid benefits. The State Government, in order to regulate the payment of grant-in-aid to private Educational Institutions made Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions Grant-in-Aid (Regulation) Act, (Act No.22 of 1988). The validity of this enactment was the subject matter of challenge in a series of Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals before this Court. Ultimately, the matter went up to Supreme Court and the entire issue was concluded by the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2422 of 1997 which was decided on 07.08.2000. That Judgment was reported as the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vs. [1] G.V.K.Girls High School, Tadikond a . After enacting the Act 22 of 1988, the State Government passed orders through its proceedings G.O.Ms.No.326 Education (SSE.I) Department dated 17.10.1989 accepting the recommendations made by the Grant-in-Aid Committee in respect of 59 Secondary Schools, 72 Elementary Schools, 5 Oriental Schools, 55 Additional Sections in Secondary Schools, 84 Additional Sections in Elementary Schools and 12 Additional Sections in Oriental Schools, as per the details annexed to the said order and admitted them to grantin-aid. Through the same orders, the State Government has also released a sum of Rs.63 lakhs to meet the financial commitment towards grant-in-aid sanctioned for the period from 1.11.1989 to 29.2.1990. It will be relevant to notice that with reference to the 7^th petitioner school, two posts of B.Ed Assistants and four posts of Secondary Grade Basic Training (SGBT) teachers posts were admitted to grant-in-aid and they were also released a sum of Rs.52,324/- for the

¶16

aforementioned period. Thus, on and from 1.11.1989, all these petitioners 1 to 6 have started receiving their salaries and allowances as per the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government.

¶17

However, Sri Aka Venkataramana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would urge that as was submitted in para 12 of the Government Order contained in G.O.Ms.No.326, dated 17^th October, 1989, separate orders with regard to payment of arrears, which were promised to be issued have not been issued and hence, the State Government should be compelled to pass orders for payment of arrears payable to the petitioners 1 to 6 for the period prior to 1.11.1989. Sri Aka Venkataramana, the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the orders passed by the State Government contained in G.O.Ms.No.144 Education Department, dated 4^th November, 2000, ordering for payment of the arrears for the period commencing from 01.03.1986 to 31.10.1989. He, therefore, urges that parity of treatment should be accorded to the petitioners 1 to 6 herein also at par with those who are covered by the sweep of the orders passed by the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.No.144 Education Department, dated 4^th November, 2000.

¶18

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, in my opinion, rightly pointed out that the two posts of B.Ed Assistants, which have been admitted to grant-in-aid in the 7^th petitioner school through the orders of the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.NO.326, dated 17^th October, 1989 cannot be paid any arrears for the period prior to 1.11.1989 as the school has been functioning only as an Upper Primary School and it has been upgraded as High School only during the academic session 1988. In the absence of any material placed by the petitioners 1 to 6 herein to demonstrate that the two posts of B.Ed Assistants were sanctioned to the Upper Primary School, the contention canvassed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader cannot be rejected at all. The petitioners have not chosen to place any material on record, in spite of my granting time for doing so on 20^th October, 2011. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that in so far as two B.Ed Assistants are concerned, they cannot be granted arrears of grant-in-aid for the period prior to 1.11.1989. Such teachers are entitled to be paid grant-in-aid only with effect from 1.11.1989 in accordance with the sanction accorded through G.O.Ms.No.326, dated

¶19

17^th October, 1989.

¶20

However, with regard to the remaining four Secondary Grade Training (SGT) Teachers, the school was established after 01.04.1977, no doubt. But it was so established after obtaining prior permission of the District Educational Officer, Guntur. By 01.09.1985, it had completed five years of its existence. In fact, the Elementary School was upgraded as that of an Upper Primary School by granting permission for starting classes VI and VII in the academic years 1977-78, 1978-79 respectively. Therefore, by 01.09.1985, the conditions stipulated by the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.No.238 Education, dated 27^th May, 1986 has been fulfilled. Such schools, as a matter of principle have been agreed to be admitted to grant-in-aid by the State Government. As is now noticed in the orders passed by the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.No.144 Education (PS.2) Department, dated 4^th November, 2000, teachers in similarly situated schools were admitted to grant-in-aid with effect from 1.3.1986. I do not find any distinguishing features as to why the four SGBT teachers in the 7^th petitioner school shall not be admitted to grant-in-aid with effect from 1.3.1986 and they be also not paid arrears for the period from 1.3.1986 up to 31^st October, 1989 at par with those schools which are covered by the sweep of the orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.144 Education Department, dated 4^th November, 2000.

¶21

Learned Assistant Government Pleader tried to resist this part of the claim by urging that no claim for grant-in-aid shall be entertained after expiry of three year period and when the period is so reckoned from 1.3.1986, according to him, the claim is barred by 1.3.1989 itself and the present writ petition having been instituted on 23^rd August, 2001, it shall be rejected out-right. It will be important to notice that till the Supreme Court rendered its final judgment in Civil Appeal No.2422 of 1997 on 7^th August, 2000, the entire issue of payment of arrears on account of grant-in-aid scheme to various schools/teachers was confined to cold storage by the State Government. Only after the final Judgment of the Supreme Court, orders were passed by the State Government. That is the reason why the State Government passed orders through G.O.Ms.No.144 Education Department, on 4^th November, 2000 ordering for payment of arrears to teachers of four different schools mentioned therein. In the instant case, the Management of the 7^th petitioner school submitted a detailed representation to the State Government on 9^th February, 2001 and finding no response there to, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted six months later. Therefore, the State Government’s action

¶22

itself emanated from the date of Judgment on 7^th August, 2000, from which period, the period of three years is to be reckoned thus and hence, the claim of the petitioners cannot be said to be any way barred. I, therefore, do not find any legitimate reasons to deny the claim of the four SGBT Teachers of the 7^th petitioner school for payment of arrears of grant-in-aid for the period from 1.3.1986 up to 31^st October, 1989.

¶23

This Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated supra. The eligible four Secondary Grade Basic Training (SGBT) teachers working in the 7^th petitioner school be paid their arrears of grant-in-aid for the period from 1.3.1986 to 31^st October, 1989 on par with those covered by the sweep of the Government Orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 4^th November, 2000 within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: 21-08-2012. KVS

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.17647 OF 2001

¶27

August 21, 2012

¶28

kvs

¶29

[1] AIR 2000 SC 2651

Y.Jaya Raju Guntur Dist and 6 Ors. v. S.A.P. Its Prl Sec to Govt Edu DEPTAND2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Jaya Raju Guntur Dist and 6 Ors. v. S.A.P. Its Prl Sec to Govt Edu DEPTAND2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishram Das, S/o Sri Sudha Das, Vs Shri Gopal Gupta, S/o Not known

K.Jayaprakash, Vs Sri S.Prasada Rao

P. Dasarath Naik Vs Sri Prasada Rao IPS

Smt. Usha Rani Vs Sri Salman Arogya Raj

Md.Ghouse Pasha Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Abdul Rasheed Vs The Ap Transmission Corporation Ltd.