Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34414 of 2016 Petitioner :- Shyam Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in B.T.C. Grade on 05.08.1974. He was granted benefit of C.T. Grade on 05.08.1979. In terms of the applicable Government Order he was allowed L.T. Grade.w.e.f. 01.01.1986. He continued to work and has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011. It is after his retirement that his salary has been re-fixed by granting the benefit of L.T.Grade w.e.f. 05.08.1989. A direction is issued to recover the excess amount and petitioner's pension is also reduced. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 7131 of 2012, which was disposed of requiring the competent authority to take a decision in the matter. It is thereafter that the Regional Deputy Director of Education has rejected petitioner's claim by observing that it was only upon completion of 10 years service in C.T. Grade that the benefit of L.T. Grade could be granted to petitioner.
The aforesaid order is challenged by relying upon Government Order dated 03.06.1989 which provides for grant of L.T. Grade to a teacher employed in C.T. Grade for five years and has otherwise completed 10 years of service. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.14171 of 2014 (Om Prakash Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) as also the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 31957 of 2011 (Khetpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). It is also pointed out that the benefit of L.T. Grade was otherwise allowed to petitioner in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7944 of 2002 (Som Prakash Shukla Vs. The District Inspector of Schools and other) in which the precise issues raised herein has been answered in following words:-
"The issue is to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to L.T. Grade after 10 years in C.T. Grade or after 5 years. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a clarification issued by the Additional Director of Education, U.P. dated 2.12.1989 by which Government Order dated 3.6.1989 was clarified and a direction was issued that if the trained graduate teachers with L.T./B.Ed. and has completed 5 years of service in C.T. Grade with 10 years of satisfactory services in all shall be given L.T.Grade. The petitioner was appointed as B.T.C. grade teacher in 1974. He was given C.T. Grade in 1979 and that after having completed 5 years in C.T. Grade with 10 years of service in all was given L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The petitioner is graduate and holds B.Ed. degree. The submission was upheld by this Court in Smt. Shakuntala Tripathi Vs. Deputy Director of Education reported in 1995 AWC 893. It was held by this Court as follows:
"But the impugned order in so far as it holds that the petitioner should be entitled to L.T. Grade with effect from 1.7.90 i.e. after completion of 10 years continuous satisfactory service in C.T. grade, is, to my mind, founded on misreading and is contrary to the intendment of the G.O. aforesaid. What is required in order to qualify for L.T. grade in accordance with the G.O. aforesaid is to have five years service in C.T. Grade and 10 years in overall satisfactory service. The words, 'satisfactory service' (Santosh Janak Seva) occurring in G.O. aforesaid, in my opinion include the service rendered by the petitioner in J.T.C. grade as well as 10 years satisfactory service within the meaning of the G.O. aforesaid cannot be circumscribed to service rendered in C.T. grade alone, that is how I have construed the G.O. aforesaid, which amended an earlier G.O. dated 19.10.1989, in Writ Petition No. 16360 of 1991, Smt. Aruna Ghosh Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 8.02.1995. I am of the view that on a proper construction of the G.O. aforesaid, the petitioner would be entitled to get L.T. grade on completion of 5 years service in C.T. grade and 10 years over all satisfactory service after the institution was upgraded to the level of High Schools. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be modified to that extent."
For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the impugned order by which L.T. grade has been shifted from 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1989 is held to be incorrect. The petitioner was rightly given L.T. grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The writ petition is consequently allowed. The impugned order dated 14.1.2002 is set aside. The petitioner will be treated to L.T. grade teacher with effect from 1.1.1986 and all the financial benefits and other benefits including selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and seniority shall be restored. The consequential order shall be passed within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him."
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities and have perused the materials on record. The issue raised in the present petition is no longer res-integra inasmuch as the Government Order dated 03.06.1989 providing for grant of L.T. Grade to those who have completed five years in C.T. Grade together with total service of ten years is well recogniseed in previous judgments of this Court, referred to above. The earlier benefit granted to petitioner was in accordance with the Government Order dated 03.06.1989 inasmuch as he had completed more than ten years service as a teacher and five years in C.T. Grade. Working of petitioner as Assistant Teacher in B.T.C. Grade was rightly calculated for the purpose of grant of such benefit. In such circumstances there was no occasion for the respondents to withdraw the benefit already granted to him of payment of salary in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and/or to adjust the surplus amount from petitioner's retiral benefit. No fraud or misrepresentation was otherwise attributed to petitioner. In such circumstances the impugned action of the State in proceeding to unilaterally reduce petitioner's salary by denying him benefit of L.T. Grade from 01.01.1986 to 05.08.1989 is found to be wholly illegal and contrary to the Government Orders. Such action is otherwise in derogation of the law already settled by this Court on the issue. Consequently order impugned dated 11.05.2016 passed by Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Agra stands quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to ensure release of retiral benefits by counting his services in L.T. Grade from 01.01.1986 and to release all arrears etc. within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum. In that event it would be open for the respondents to recover the amount of interest from the salary of the officer who is found responsible for not ensuring release of the retiral benefits in terms of the aforesaid direction.
In light of the above directions/ observations this petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 Abhishek Singh