High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2241/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure B, order dated 06.02.2009 passed by the Inspector of Schools, KDC, Guwahati by which while allowing her crossing the E.B at the stage of Rs. 4720/- P.M. in the scale of pay of Rs. 3580/- to Rs. 87 50/- raising her pay up to Rs. 4840/- w.e.f. 01.08.2008, the earlier order dated 04.05.1996 (Annexure A) was cancelled. By the said earlier order, the petitione r along with two others was allowed to draw one advance increment for acquiring B.Ed. degree w.e.f. the date of following date of announcement of B.Ed. result a s per Rules. In case of the petitioner, the effective date was 02.12.1995.
Legal Reasoning
Admittedly while canceling the said order dated 04.05.1996 by the impugn ed order dated 06.02.2009, the petitioner was not put to any king of notice nor she was provided with any opportunity of hearing. Thus, the benefit which was op erative in favour of the petitioner for long 13 years was withdrawn by a stroke of pen. As submitted by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that count alone. The petitioner was informed of the reasons for cancellation of the earli er order dated 04.05.1996, by which she was provided with one advance increment on account of acquiring B.Ed degree, by Annexure C, communication dated 07.05.20 09. The communication was made by the Inspector of Schools, KDC, Guwahati. As pe r the reasons assigned there, the petitioner was not entitled to the advance inc rement on account of her B. Ed. degree as the same did not have any direct link with the actual performance of her duties as Music Teacher in the particular sch ool. Be it stated here that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Music in the School namely Satgaon High School. Thus, here is a case where at t he particular stage of crossing of EB, the benefit by way of advance increment p rovided to the petitioner was withdrawn on the ground of non-admissibility of th e same. In this connection, the respondents referred to the provisions in the ROP Rules regarding the provision for advance increment. For a ready reference, the releva nt portion of the ROP rules is quoted below: (cid:28)The Commissioner have recommended that the Advance increment for acquisition of higher qualification having direct link with the actual performance of duties i n the post may continue in the cases as at Appendix-II (cid:29) Appendix- II to the Rules providing for one advance increment for B.T./B.Ed. Deg ree refers to Graduate Teachers of high school. Admittedly, the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in the graduate scale of pay. It is, in this context, Mr. Sha rma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is immaterial as t o which branch one has graduated. He submits that the petitioner, apart from bei ng a several graduate, she is also a graduate in music along with her B.Ed. degr ee.
Decision
In the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically stated in paragrap hs 5 and 6 and so also in the reply affidavit that she is engaged in attending t he General classes up to higher section and she is also engaged in question sett ing. Thus, according to the petitioner, apart from the music classes, she is als o required to take General classes as a Graduate Teacher. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respond ent No.2. The advance increment has been provided in the ROP Rules as an incentive to those teachers, who have obtained B.Ed. degree. The very purpose of the ROP Rules providing for advance increment is to give incentive to the teachers, who have acquired higher qualification. In the impugned order, no reason has been as signed as to why the earlier order dated 04.05.1996 was cancelled. However, when the petitioner made an application under RTI Act, 2005, she was provided with t he reason that she was not entitled to get advance increment as her B.Ed. degree did not have any direct link with actual performance of duties. Apart from the fact that Appendix-II of the ROP Rules does not make any distinction among the Graduate Teachers irrespective of their branches of studie s, it cannot be stated that the higher qualification obtained by the petitioner does not have any direct link with the actual purpose of duties. The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in the graduate scale of pay, apart from her music classes , also required to take other General classes. The duties involved in music clas ses cannot be said to not have any direct link with the actual purpose of duties . If such a restrictive interpretation is given to the clause relating to advanc e increment, same will frustrate the very purpose of granting incentive to the t eachers and the same will cloth the authorities to treat the teachers discrimina tely. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to accept the writ petition and accordingly it is allowed by setting aside and quashing that part of the im pugned order dated 06.02.2009, by which the earlier order granting advance incre ment to the petitioner on account of her B.Ed. degree was cancelled. At this stage, Mr. A. D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department referring to the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit, s ubmits that even if the petitioner is entitled to the said advance increment, so me adjustment in respect of effective date may have to be made. It will be alway s open to the respondents to do so in case of necessity. However, Mr. Sharma, le arned counsel for the petitioner, submits that no such adjustment is required as everything was in order till passing of the impugned order. Writ petitioner is allowed. The respondents shall now take all consequential action. There shall be no order as to cost.