Judgment · High Court · 2012

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.5.2011 rendered in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C) 179/2009, the appellant is in appeal. We have heard Mr NN Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms D Sinha, learned Central Govt. counsel for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. None appears on behalf of the State respondents. The facts in short necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the appellant who admittedly is a teacher working in a recognized (non-provincialis ed) school in the State of Assam had been nominated to undergo training in the C entral Institute of Indian Languages (CIIL) in one of its locations in the count ry. At the relevant point of time he was drawing an amount of Rs. 3580/- per mon th as lumpsum payment. On being queried by us, it has been clarified at the Bar that though then the scale of pay for the post at par with the one that he was h olding was Rs. 3580/- to 8750/- per month, he had not been accorded the same. In cidentally, however, the lumpsum amount of his remuneration was the same as the basic minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 3580/- to 8750/- per month. Contending tha t though the trainees otherwise similarly situated from different States who had undertaken training in the same Institute had been favoured with higher emolume nts due to sanction towards DA, HRA and Medical Allowance in addition to the min imum of the pay scale they were denied the same, the appellant and others approa ched this Court through the aforementioned writ petitions seeking judicial inter vention for redress. Principal reliance in endorsement of their claim was laid o n the letter No. DT/LT/1/98/219 dated 4.12.2001 of the Deputy Director, Secondar y Education, Assam addressed to the Director, Central Institute of Indian Langua ges, Mysore which disclosed that some teachers of ad-hoc/ recognized schools dep uted to the Institute for language training for the session 2001-2002 had been d rawing full pay of graduate post during the training period and, thus, were enti tled to get full pay and allowances of graduate teachers. By the same analogy, t he above referred departmental authority requested the Central Institute of Indi an Languages to allow the deputed teachers of recognized/ ad-hoc schools of Assa m to draw full pay and other allowances inter alia DA/ HRA/ Medical Allowance et c. admissible under the Rules in the scale of pay of Rs. 3580/- to 8750/- per mo nth. In their affidavit, the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 herein referred to the Office Order dated 1.6.2002 of the Assistant Director of CIIL, Mysore to the ef fect that the teachers from ad-hoc/ recognized schools would be entitled to a lu mpsum amount of pay equivalent to the minimum basic of the pay scale as mention ed in the last pay certificate of the concerned teachers. The writ petitioners’ (including the appellant) claim for higher amount above Rs. 3580/- during the pe riod of training was, thus, repudiated. The affidavit-in-opposition filed on beh alf of the State respondents affirmed that the writ petitioners (including the a ppellant) were working in ad-hoc/ recognized schools of the State of Assam and w ere receiving lumpsum pay at the rate of Rs. 3580/- per month. The letter dated 20.3.2001 of the Deputy Director of Secondary Assam to this effect was relied up on. The learned Single Judge on a consideration of the pleaded stands of the parties having noted that the writ petitioners (including the appellant) at all relevant times were in receipt of a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3580/- per month only , declined to accede to their request for release of higher amount by way of DA, HRA and Medical Allowance etc. Though it was contended on behalf of the writ pe titioners (including the appellant) that similarly situated trainees had been fa voured with such benefits and that the denial thereof to them amounted to hostil e discrimination, this plea was negated in the contextual facts. Mr Upadhyay has persuasively argued trying to draw sustenance from the l etter dated 4.12.2001 referred to hereinabove that not only the appellant is ent itled, as conveyed thereby, to additional amounts by way of DA/HRA/Medical Allow ance etc, on a correct understanding of the contents of the said communication, the respondents have meanwhile extended this benefit to other teachers of the St ate denying arbitrarily, however, the same to only three including the appellant . Mr Upadhyay, however, inspite of the insistence of this Court could neither p roduce the letter dated 20.3.2001 of the Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Assam referred to in the impugned judgment and order nor the communications dat ed 1.1.2001 and 18.4.2001 mentioned in the letter dated 4.12.2001. In reply, Ms Sinha has argued that having regard to the admitted fact th at during the period of training the appellant was in receipt of only an amount of Rs. 3580/- per month as lumpsum payment, he not having been accorded a regula r scale with the said sum at the base level thereof, rejection of his claim for additional amounts by way of DA/ HRA/ Medical Allowance had been validly made an d that no interference is warranted in the present appeal. To reiterate, there is none to represent the Department of Education, Go vt. of Assam in the instant appeal. We have carefully considered the pleadings on record as well as the docu ments in support thereof. Due consideration has also been extended to the rival submissions made. The admitted facts unassailably demonstrate that during the pe riod of training the appellant received an amount of Rs. 3580/- per month only a s a lumpsum payment. He had not been sanctioned the pay scale of Rs. 3580/- to 8 750/- per month. Not only the Office Order dated 1.6.2002 of the Assistant Direc tor (Admn) i/c on behalf of the Institute clarified that the teachers from the a d-hoc/ recognized schools will be entitled to a lumpsum amount equivalent to th e minimum basic of the pay scale, the Office Order No. F.NO.6/8-1/2001-02/Assam dated 18.4.2001 of the Reader cum Research Officer thereof (CIIL) also evidence s that the trainees would be entitled to a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3580/- per mont h as mentioned by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam vide letter No. ET/ LT/1/98/125 dated 23.3.2001. In the face of these two Office Orders issued by th e Institute, we are of the view that the recommendation made vide letter dated 4 .12.2001 on which the appellant relies is not of any decisive significance. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam vide this letter had requested the Centra l Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore to allow the deputed teachers of recogni zed/ ad-hoc schools of Assam to draw full pay and other allowances including DA/ HRA/ Medical Allowance as admissible under the Rules. This recommendation, as t he contents of the letter would amply demonstrate, is wholly founded on the fac t that the deputed teachers of recognized/ ad-hoc schools of other States had be en drawing full pay of graduate post during the training period and were accordi ngly accorded the aforementioned allowances i.e. DA/ HRA/ Medical Allowance etc. Besides the fact that the entitlement by way of pay and allowances of te achers of recognized/ ad-hoc schools of other States is understandably relatable to their service conditions as prescribed by law and for that matter specific R ules framed in that regard, as the appellant admittedly at all relevant times wa s in receipt of a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3580/- per month not as the basic minimu m of the pay scale of Rs. 3580/- to 8750/- but only as a consolidated payment, w e are even otherwise not convinced with the recommendation conveyed by the lette r dated 4.12.2001 vis-à-vis the issue under scrutiny. The Institute having clari fied in clear terms by the aforementioned Office Orders about the entitlements r eceivable by the teachers of ad-hoc/ recognized schools deputed for the training , no convincing and cogent justification is discernible to differ from the concl usions recorded in the impugned judgment and order. The plea of discrimination a lso does not weigh with us in view of the above determination. We refrain oursel ves from making further observation in this regard. We, thus, do not find any merit in the instant appeal which is according ly dismissed. No costs.