Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Rashid Ali Khan vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 November, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45974 of 2004 Petitioner :- Rashid Ali Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Rai,Mahtab Alam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.S. Upadhyay,S.C. Pandey,Sudhakar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner praying for a Mandamus to be issued to the respondents to refix the the basic salary of petitioner at Rs.7,500/- in promotional grade w.e.f. 19.02.1996 in pursuance of Government Orders dated 03.09.2001 and 20.12.2001 and to pay arrears of salary in the revised Pay Scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on 19.02.1974 as Assistant Teacher (Urdu) at Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Machchharhedi Vikas Khand Chhetra Nakur, District Saharanpur and on 01.01.1984 after completing the services of 10 years, petitioner was given the selection pay grade of Rs. 4800/-. According to the Government Order dated 20.12.2001 on ten years of satisfactory service an incumbent is allowed to selection Pay Scale and on completion of 12 years of satisfactory service an incumbent is entitled to promotional Pay Scale. Since the petitioner was appointed on 19.02.1974, therefore, on completion of 10 years of service, he was granted selection pay grade and since 1984 he completed 12 years of service on 19.02.1996 and became entitled to promotional Pay Scale of Rs. 7,500/- w.e.f. 19.02.1996. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Master on 12.09.1997 and he should have been given Rs.8,000/- as starting pay and thereafter the annual increments.
4. The petitioner preferred a representation on 08.07.2002 before the respondent No. 4, District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur. But no heed was paid. The petitioner was granted Rs. 5,625/- only w.e.f 01.01.1996. It has also been mentioned that the respondent No. 4 prepared a list of 22 teachers selected for grant of promotional Pay Scale on 07.03.2003. The name of petitioner does not find place in the said list. The representation of petitioner remained pending.
5. This Court while entertaining the writ petition had directed the respondents to file their counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Basic Education Officer, Nakur, Saharanpur it has been mentioned that petitioner was appointed on 19.02.1974 under a Scheme known as "Half a Million Jobs". The persons appointed in the said scheme were absorbed in terms of the Government Order No. 7320 dated 05.10.1984 on 05.02.1985. After absorption of teachers appointed in the scheme as regular Assistant Teachers, they were granted regular Pay Scale as admissible to Assistant Teachers in the Department only w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
6. The petitioner was given the benefit of Selection Pay Scale on 01.01.1986 and he would have completed 12 years of service on 01.01.1998 in the said Pay Scale. But before he completed his services in the said Scale making him eligible for promotional Scale, he was promoted on the post of Headmaster on 12.09.1997. After his promotion as Headmaster his claim for promotional Pay Scale as Assistant Teacher cannot be considered.
7. Since the petitioner is working as Head Master in Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Machchharhedi Vikas Khand Chhetra Nakur, District Saharanpur w.e.f. 12.09.1997, he is now eligible for grant of Selection Grade after completion of 10 years of service as Headmaster. The contention of petitioner raised in paragraph - 12 of the writ petition has been denied on the ground that when other twenty two teachers were given promotional Pay Scale, the petitioner had completed only seven years of service as Headmaster. Therefore, his name has not been included in the said list of 22 teachers issued on 07.03.2003.
8. The learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out in rejoinder affidavit filed by him that since the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Urdu) on 19.02.1974, he completed 12 years of service in 1986, therefore, he should have been granted Selection Grade w.e.f. 19.02.1984 and promotional Pay Scale after completing 12 years of service in Selection Pay Scale 1996. However, no specific denial of the averments in the counter affidavit regarding the petitioner being initially engaged as Urdu Teacher in a Scheme known as "Half a Million Jobs" has been made by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit.
9. The counsel for petitioner says that in paragraph - 7 of the writ petition he has said that he was appointed on 19.02.1974 as Assistant Teacher (Urdu) at Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Machchharhedi Vikas Khand Chhetra Nakur, District Saharanpur, which fact has not been denied in paragraph - 9 of the counter affidavit.
10. However, this Court still finds that the petitioner has not made any specific denial of the contents of paragraph - 3 of the counter affidavit where previous history of petitioner's engagement initially under the Scheme aforesaid and thereafter his absorption as regular Assistant Teacher in terms of the Government Order No. 7320 dated 05.10.1984 has been stated. Lastly, the petitioner has submitted that his representation is still pending before the respondents and the same has not been decided till date, therefore, this Court should direct the District Basic Education Officer to consider and decide the representation made by him on 19.03.2003.
11. This Court, however, does not find any merit in the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner as this Court is convinced that petitioner's substantive appointment as Assistant Teacher in the Department of Basic Education took place only after 05.10.1984 in pursuance of the Government Order issued in this regard. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served in directing the District Basic Education Officer to decide the representation of the petitioner when this Court does not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner.
12. The writ petition is dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 LBY
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Rashid Ali Khan vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
28 November, 2018
Judges
  • S Sangeeta Chandra
Advocates
  • Vinod Kumar Rai Mahtab Alam