4. The appellants/petitioners' contention in the writ petition was that there were different categories of teachers training which are given below:-
(A) H.T.C. For Primary Section (B) J.T.C. For Junior High School Section both for Model School (attached to Teachers Training College) (C) C.T. Basic training for Junior High School in Govt. High School and Intermediate Colleges. (D) L.T. For High School Classes.
(E) Intermediate Post Graduate in subject concerned.
5. The appellants/petitioners further alleged that amongst all the categories J.T.C. training was only for model schools and the other training qualifications are applicable to all categories; that after 1970 J.T.C. and H.T.C. were abolished and a new training B.T.C. Two years' training course was introduced for Primary and Junior High Schools and after 1980 the training of C.T. was also abolished and it was declared as a dying cadre and as per the government order dated 24.05.2004 all the graduate C.T.Grade teachers were merged with L.T.Grade teachers who were working either in Government Schools or in Grant-in-aid schools; that as per the government order dated 24.05.2004 the teachers of Government Intermediate Colleges were also merged in L.T.Grade who were in C.T.Grade by relaxing their educational qualifications, but the benefit of it was not given to teachers of Government Inter Colleges (C.T.Inter); that as per the government order dated 4.5.2006 the teachers who were having J.T.C. training were promoted to C.T.Grade Inter and teachers having J.T.C. training qualification were promoted as Head Master of the Model Schools and C.T.Teachers were equalized; that after the Vth Pay Commission report Head Master of the Model Schools who were only High School, but promoted as Head Master of Model Schools were given pay scale of 1480-2190 and selection grade of 1550-2500, but the appellants/petitioners being in C.T.Grade were given pay scale of Rs.1200/- as starting pay and Rs.2040/- as selection grade despite the fact that the petitioners were more qualified and equal to the fact that the petitioners were more qualified and equal to ten years J.T.C. training and that as per Fundamental Rules 22 if there is anomaly by stepping up pay of senior on promotion drawing less than his junior, then in order to remove the anomaly of the government servant promoted or appointed in the higher post after 1.4.1961 and drawing lower rate of pay than other government servant junior to him in the lower grade in the lower grade or promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, the pay of the senior officer in higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post, however, this will be subject to the following conditions namely-
(a) Both the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the post in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in same cadre.
(b) The scale of lower and higher post in which they are entitled to pay should be identical.
(c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the applications of F.R. 22. As if in the lower post of Junior Teacher draws from time to time a higher rate then senior by virtue of grant of advance increments, the lower provision will not be involved to step up the pay of senior teacher.
6. The appellants/petitioners further contended that the government order dated 06.09.2005 clearly shows that in order to remove anomaly if any senior teacher draws less pay than junior, the pay scale should be equal by way of stepping up; that the government order dated 16.5.2007 clearly provided that where no departmental proceeding is pending against a government servant and he is drawing a lower rate of pay in a post than another government servant junior to him, the pay of the senior in higher post should be stepped up to the figure equal to the pay fixed for junior officer in that higher post; that the appellants/petitioners have completed more than 25 years' service and some of them were going to retire by 30.06.2007, but they have not been provided any benefit which flows from their service and have also not been given any benefit made available by IVth and Vth Pay Commission.
7. The counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submits that the case of the appellants/petitioner is fully covered by the judgment rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10665 of 2006 Dharampal Singh Rajpoot and others vs. State of U.P. And others and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.13347 of 2006 Rakesh Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 30.03.2009. In the aforesaid decision the learned single Judge has held as under:-
" In the impugned order it has been admitted that there is disparity in the pay scales and no plausible reason to justify the same has been given.
Primary/basic education is very important hence teachers of such schools deserve good pay. However, there is absolutely no reason for giving them higher pay than the pay which is being paid to the teachers of secondary schools and Intermediate colleges.
The assertion of the respondents in the impugned order as well as in the counter affidavit that teachers appointed in model schools and junior high schools even though after their absorption/transfer in secondary schools and intermediate colleges and teachers of Secondary schools and intermediate colleges do not constitute one cadre hence different pay scales are permissible is not tenable in law. In this regard reference may be made to an authority of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2509 "Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Rajesh Mohan Shukla". In the said authority it has been held that difference in Dearness allowance paid to those appointed directly and to deputationists who were absorbed was illegal and improper and that denial of equal pay only on the basis of source of recruitment was improper. The court further held that on the principal of equal pay for equal work both must be paid same salary and allowance.
Until 1987 B.T.C. teachers of model schools were being paid lesser salary than the teachers of C.T. grade in secondary schools and intermediate colleges. It was only after direction of the High Court in the writ petition filed by them that Government order of 1987 was issued to bring them at par in respect of pay scales with C.T. Grade teachers of secondary schools and intermediate colleges. However, that direction was only to bring them at par and not to put them on higher pedestal than C.T. grade teachers, of secondary schools and intermediate colleges. They cannot be permitted to have double benefit. One of coming at par and other of stealing march over the teachers of secondary schools and intermediate colleges. While removing discrimination of one sort, discrimination of another sort cannot be brought into existence.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed.
Impugned order is set aside and it is directed that petitioners must be paid the same pay scale as is being paid to the teachers of model schools. However, in accordance with the above authority of the Supreme Court the pay scale shall be granted to the petitioners since the date of filing of the earlier writ petition (i.e. w.p.no.49384 of 2004) decided on 22.11.2004. "
10. Learned counsel for the respondents also conceded that the present controversy is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision and the said judgment has become final between the parties as no appeal has been filed against the same.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2008 passed by learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24222 of 2008 is set aside. The respondents are directed to award pay scale of selection grade and promotional grade to the petitioners/appellants for which they are entitled as per government rules.
20.01.2012/PK/Yachna