Laxmi Narain Gangwar Another v. State of U.P. and Others) dated

1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddhartha Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, as the the consequential prayer to correctly fix the salary of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade with effect from 01.01.1986.

3. Instead of going into the facts the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that impugned order are contrary to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.70561 of 2006 (Laxmi Narain Gangwar & Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others) dated 03.07.2009 filed by the petitioners. As the issue is already dealt by this Court while deciding the said writ petition and finally held that the petitioners are entitled for L.T. Grade Scale with effect from 01.01.1986 and selection grade pay scale of L.T. Grade with effect from 01.01.1986.

4. Surprisingly, without considering the observations/ directions issued by this Court in the above said judgment the respondents once again passed the impugned order by relying on Government Order No.1239 dated 03.06.1989. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that even the said Government Order was also considered by this Court in order dated 03.07.2009. He placed reliance on paragraph Nos.31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, and also findings of the Court at paragraph Nos.45, 46 and 47, which reads as follows:- "31. The Government Order No. 1239 dated 3rd June, 1989 (Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit) was issued in regard to salary fixation in the revised pay-cales (enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1986) in respect of the teachers working in the aided educational institutions. Clause 9 of Paragraph 3 of the said Government Order provided as under: *(9) ममधयममक मवदमलय कक सस०टस० गकड कक ऐसक अधयमपक जज पमशमकत सनमतक हह तथम उनकक दमरम 10 वरर कक ससतजरजनक सकवम पपरस कक जम चचकक हज उनहक एल०टस० गकड रक पमकयम कक अनचसमर एल०टस० गकड मम मदयम जमयकगम तथम उनकम वकतन मनरमररण उपयच मकयम जमयकगम। एल०टस० गकड मम जमनक वमलक ऐसक सस०टस० गकड कक मशकक वकतन मनरमररण कक मतथथ कज चमहक सस०टस० गकड कक समरमरण वकतनममन मम कमयररत रहक हह यम सकलककशन गकड मम, उनकम वकतन मनरमररण एल०टस० गकड कक समरमरण वकतनममन मम मकयम जमयकगम।"

32. The above-quoted Clause 9, inter-alia, laid down that such teachers of C.T. Grade in the Madhyamik Vidyayala who were trained graduates and who had completed 10 years' satisfactory service, would be granted L. T. Grade. Therefore, this Clause required completion of 10 years' satisfactory service in C.T. Grade by a teacher before he could be granted L.T. Grade.

33. It may be mentioned that another Government Order No. 1763 dated 3rd June, 1989 (Annexure RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit) was issued in regard to fixation of salary in the revised pay-scales (enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1986) in respect of the Government employees.

34. The Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad issued an Order dated 19.10.1989 Annexure RA-3 to the rejoinder affidavit). Paragraph 12 of the said Order provided as follows: मशकम अनचभमग-7 मदनमसक 11 अगसत " शमसनमदकश ससखयम 3299/15-7-89-1 (136) 1989 दमरम सस०टस० गकड कज डमईसग कक डर घजमरत कर मदयम गयम हक। इस पकमर अशमसककय सहमयतम पमप उचचतर ममधयममक मवदमलयह मम सस०टस० गकड कम कजई पद ससथजत नहह मकयम जमयकगम और न मकसस अधयमपक कक मनयचमक कक जमयकगस। शमसनमदकश ससखयम वक०आर०-2-1239 दस-8-बस-89 मदनमसक 3 जपन, 89 कक मबनदच 9 कक अनचसमर ममधयममक मवदमलयह कक सस०टस० गकड कक ऐसक अधयमपक जज पमशमकत सनमतक उपमथर कक समथ एल०टस०बस०एड० हज तथम उनकक दमरम 10 वरर कक ससतजरजनक सकवम पपरस कक जम चचकक हज उनहम एल०टस० गकड मदयम जमयकगम तथम उनकम वकतन मनरमररण उपरजक पमकयम कक अनचसमर एल०टस० गकड मम मकयम जमयकगम। एल०टस० गकड मम जमनक वमलक वकतन मनरमररण कक मतथथ कज चमहक समरमरण वकतनममन मम ऐसक सस०टस० गकड कक कमयररत रहक हह यम सकलककसन गकड मम, उनकम वकतन मनरमररण एल०टस० गकड कक समरमरण वकतनममन मम मकयम जमयकगम।" मव०वक०आ० अनचभमग-2 मशकक,

35. The above-quoted Paragraph 12 of the Order reiterated that by the Government Order dated 11th August, 1989, C.T. Grade had been declared as a dying-cadre, and thus, no post of C.T. Grade would be created in the Private Aided Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalayas nor would any teacher be appointed. The above-quoted Paragraph further reiterated that according to Clause 9 of the Government Order No. 1239 dated 3rd June, 1989, such teachers of C.T. Grade in Madhyamik Vidyalayas, who were trained graduate-degree holders with L.T./B.Ed. and who had completed 10 years' satisfactory service, would be granted L.T. Grade.

36. Thus, the above-quoted Paragraph 12 reiterated that completion of 10 years' satisfactory service by a teacher of C.T. Grade was necessary before he could be granted L.T. Grade.

45. It is, therefore, concluded that each of the petitioners completed 5 years' service in C.T. Grade and 10 years' total length of service as a teacher in the year 1984 i.e. prior to the relevant date, namely, 1.1.1986, and each of the petitioners, therefore, became entitled to grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 provided the 10 years' service rendered by each of them was satisfactory and each of them fulfilled the requirements of training and academic qualifications as per the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12. Hence, in case it is found that the 10 years' service rendered by each of the petitioners, as mentioned above, was satisfactory and each of the petitioners fulfilled the requirements of training and academic qualifications as per the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12, each of the petitioners would be entitled to grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The findings on the questions of 10 years' service rendered by each of the petitioners being satisfactory and each of the petitioners fulfilling the requirements of training and academic qualifications as per the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12, will have to be recorded by the District Inspector of Schools on a consideration of the record. Therefore, the claim of each of the petitioners for grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and grant of selection grade pay scale of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1996 requires to be considered at the level of the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment.

46. The above conclusion is supported by the decisions relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.

47. In Smt. Aruna Ghosh case (supra), this Court, inter alia, referred to Paragraph 12 of the Order dated 19.10.1989 and the amended Paragraph 12 as amended by the Order dated 2.12.1989, and concluded as under (Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said ESC): "7. It is evident that a C. T. Grade teacher would be entitled to get L.T. Grade if he has completed 5 years' service in C.T. Grade and 10 years' satisfactory service as a teacher and is possessed of the requisite training and other academic qualifications. The petitioner has certainly completed 5 years' service in C.T. Grade but the question whether 10 years' of his over all tenure as a teacher was satisfactory is a question which requires to be determined. In case it is found that his overall services as a teacher during last 10 years' had been satisfactory, he would be entitled to L.T. Grade.

7. In view of the above discussion I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be given C.T. Grade w.e.f. 19.2.1986 and his claim for L.T. Grade requires to be considered at the level of the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the body of judgment.

8. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-fix the salary of the petitioner in C.T. Grade w.e.f. 19.2.1986 and pay to him the arrears of salary and other emoluments accordingly. The District Inspector of Schools shall examine the petitioners claim for L.T. Grade in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the body of this judgment, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order."

5. As the Court has considered the entire issue and held that the petitioners five years of service is rendered by each of the petitioners in B.T.C Grade/ G.T.C Grade during the period from 1974 to 1979 would be counted in computation of 10 years of total length of service and accordingly that the petitioners are entitled L.T. Grade pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986. Once the Court has decided the said issue the authorities have no right to interpret the said order and are not entitled to rely on the Government Order dated 3rd June, 1989 for rejecting the claim of the petitioners.

6. In reply to the said contentions, learned Standing counsel has made submissions based on the averments made in the counter affidavit and in the impugned order and also based on the Government Orders dated 3rd June, 1989, 16.02.1990 and 14.10.1992, the petitioners are not entitled to count their services in the B.T.C Grade for computation of 10 years service. Hence, they are not eligible, accordingly, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners.

7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsels and also on perusal of order of this Court in Writ Petition No.70561 of 2006 dated 03.07.2009, this Court is restrained from initating suo moto contempt proceedings as the matter pertains to the year 2010. Once this Court has given a mandate declaring that the petitioners are entitled to L.T. Grade with effect from 01.01.1986 the authorities have no right to reject their claim. In fact on perusal of the above orders the matter was not remanded to the discretion of the authorities. In fact the Court declared and direct the respondents, in such circumstances, the impugned order are not only contrary to the order passed by this Court dated 03.07.2009 and also contemptuous, accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.11.2009 is set aside and directing the respondents to grant L.T. Grade with effect from 01.01.1986 and selection grade pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986 and release the differential amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that authorities are also directed to revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddhartha Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, as the the consequential prayer to correctly fix the salary of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade with effect from 01.01.1986.

3. Instead of going into the facts the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that impugned order are contrary to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.70561 of 2006 (Laxmi Narain Gangwar & Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others) dated 03.07.2009 filed by the petitioners. As the issue is already dealt by this Court while deciding the said writ petition and finally held that the petitioners are entitled for L.T. Grade Scale with effect from 01.01.1986 and selection grade pay scale of L.T. Grade with effect from 01.01.1986.

4. Surprisingly, without considering the observations/ directions issued by this Court in the above said judgment the respondents once again passed the impugned order by relying on Government Order No.1239 dated 03.06.1989. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that even the said Government Order was also considered by this Court in order dated 03.07.2009. He placed reliance on paragraph Nos.31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, and also findings of the Court at paragraph Nos.45, 46 and 47, which reads as follows:- "31. The Government Order No. 1239 dated 3rd June, 1989 (Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit) was issued in regard to salary fixation in the revised pay-cales (enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1986) in respect of the teachers working in the aided educational institutions. Clause 9 of Paragraph 3 of the said Government Order provided as under: *(9) ममधयममक मवदमलय कक सस०टस० गकड कक ऐसक अधयमपक जज पमशमकत सनमतक हह तथम उनकक दमरम 10 वरर कक ससतजरजनक सकवम पपरस कक जम चचकक हज उनहक एल०टस० गकड रक पमकयम कक अनचसमर एल०टस० गकड मम मदयम जमयकगम तथम उनकम वकतन मनरमररण उपयच मकयम जमयकगम। एल०टस० गकड मम जमनक वमलक ऐसक सस०टस० गकड कक मशकक वकतन मनरमररण कक मतथथ कज चमहक सस०टस० गकड कक समरमरण वकतनममन मम कमयररत रहक हह यम सकलककशन गकड मम, उनकम वकतन मनरमररण एल०टस० गकड कक समरमरण वकतनममन मम मकयम जमयकगम।"

32. The above-quoted Clause 9, inter-alia, laid down that such teachers of C.T. Grade in the Madhyamik Vidyayala who were trained graduates and who had completed 10 years' satisfactory service, would be granted L. T. Grade. Therefore, this Clause required completion of 10 years' satisfactory service in C.T. Grade by a teacher before he could be granted L.T. Grade.

33. It may be mentioned that another Government Order No. 1763 dated 3rd June, 1989 (Annexure RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit) was issued in regard to fixation of salary in the revised pay-scales (enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1986) in respect of the Government employees.

34. The Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad issued an Order dated 19.10.1989 Annexure RA-3 to the rejoinder affidavit). Paragraph 12 of the said Order provided as follows: मशकम अनचभमग-7 मदनमसक 11 अगसत " शमसनमदकश ससखयम 3299/15-7-89-1 (136) 1989 दमरम सस०टस० गकड कज डमईसग कक डर घजमरत कर मदयम गयम हक। इस पकमर अशमसककय सहमयतम पमप उचचतर ममधयममक मवदमलयह मम सस०टस० गकड कम कजई पद ससथजत नहह मकयम जमयकगम और न मकसस अधयमपक कक मनयचमक कक जमयकगस। शमसनमदकश ससखयम वक०आर०-2-1239 दस-8-बस-89 मदनमसक 3 जपन, 89 कक मबनदच 9 कक अनचसमर ममधयममक मवदमलयह कक सस०टस० गकड कक ऐसक अधयमपक जज पमशमकत सनमतक उपमथर कक समथ एल०टस०बस०एड० हज तथम उनकक दमरम 10 वरर कक ससतजरजनक सकवम पपरस कक जम चचकक हज उनहम एल०टस० गकड मदयम जमयकगम तथम उनकम वकतन मनरमररण उपरजक पमकयम कक अनचसमर एल०टस० गकड मम मकयम जमयकगम। एल०टस० गकड मम जमनक वमलक वकतन मनरमररण कक मतथथ कज चमहक समरमरण वकतनममन मम ऐसक सस०टस० गकड कक कमयररत रहक हह यम सकलककसन गकड मम, उनकम वकतन मनरमररण एल०टस० गकड कक समरमरण वकतनममन मम मकयम जमयकगम।" मव०वक०आ० अनचभमग-2 मशकक,

35. The above-quoted Paragraph 12 of the Order reiterated that by the Government Order dated 11th August, 1989, C.T. Grade had been declared as a dying-cadre, and thus, no post of C.T. Grade would be created in the Private Aided Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalayas nor would any teacher be appointed. The above-quoted Paragraph further reiterated that according to Clause 9 of the Government Order No. 1239 dated 3rd June, 1989, such teachers of C.T. Grade in Madhyamik Vidyalayas, who were trained graduate-degree holders with L.T./B.Ed. and who had completed 10 years' satisfactory service, would be granted L.T. Grade.

36. Thus, the above-quoted Paragraph 12 reiterated that completion of 10 years' satisfactory service by a teacher of C.T. Grade was necessary before he could be granted L.T. Grade.

45. It is, therefore, concluded that each of the petitioners completed 5 years' service in C.T. Grade and 10 years' total length of service as a teacher in the year 1984 i.e. prior to the relevant date, namely, 1.1.1986, and each of the petitioners, therefore, became entitled to grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 provided the 10 years' service rendered by each of them was satisfactory and each of them fulfilled the requirements of training and academic qualifications as per the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12. Hence, in case it is found that the 10 years' service rendered by each of the petitioners, as mentioned above, was satisfactory and each of the petitioners fulfilled the requirements of training and academic qualifications as per the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12, each of the petitioners would be entitled to grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The findings on the questions of 10 years' service rendered by each of the petitioners being satisfactory and each of the petitioners fulfilling the requirements of training and academic qualifications as per the above-quoted amended Paragraph 12, will have to be recorded by the District Inspector of Schools on a consideration of the record. Therefore, the claim of each of the petitioners for grant of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and grant of selection grade pay scale of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1996 requires to be considered at the level of the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment.

46. The above conclusion is supported by the decisions relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.

47. In Smt. Aruna Ghosh case (supra), this Court, inter alia, referred to Paragraph 12 of the Order dated 19.10.1989 and the amended Paragraph 12 as amended by the Order dated 2.12.1989, and concluded as under (Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said ESC): "7. It is evident that a C. T. Grade teacher would be entitled to get L.T. Grade if he has completed 5 years' service in C.T. Grade and 10 years' satisfactory service as a teacher and is possessed of the requisite training and other academic qualifications. The petitioner has certainly completed 5 years' service in C.T. Grade but the question whether 10 years' of his over all tenure as a teacher was satisfactory is a question which requires to be determined. In case it is found that his overall services as a teacher during last 10 years' had been satisfactory, he would be entitled to L.T. Grade.

7. In view of the above discussion I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be given C.T. Grade w.e.f. 19.2.1986 and his claim for L.T. Grade requires to be considered at the level of the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the body of judgment.

8. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-fix the salary of the petitioner in C.T. Grade w.e.f. 19.2.1986 and pay to him the arrears of salary and other emoluments accordingly. The District Inspector of Schools shall examine the petitioners claim for L.T. Grade in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the body of this judgment, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order."

5. As the Court has considered the entire issue and held that the petitioners five years of service is rendered by each of the petitioners in B.T.C Grade/ G.T.C Grade during the period from 1974 to 1979 would be counted in computation of 10 years of total length of service and accordingly that the petitioners are entitled L.T. Grade pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986. Once the Court has decided the said issue the authorities have no right to interpret the said order and are not entitled to rely on the Government Order dated 3rd June, 1989 for rejecting the claim of the petitioners.

6. In reply to the said contentions, learned Standing counsel has made submissions based on the averments made in the counter affidavit and in the impugned order and also based on the Government Orders dated 3rd June, 1989, 16.02.1990 and 14.10.1992, the petitioners are not entitled to count their services in the B.T.C Grade for computation of 10 years service. Hence, they are not eligible, accordingly, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners.

7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsels and also on perusal of order of this Court in Writ Petition No.70561 of 2006 dated 03.07.2009, this Court is restrained from initating suo moto contempt proceedings as the matter pertains to the year 2010. Once this Court has given a mandate declaring that the petitioners are entitled to L.T. Grade with effect from 01.01.1986 the authorities have no right to reject their claim. In fact on perusal of the above orders the matter was not remanded to the discretion of the authorities. In fact the Court declared and direct the respondents, in such circumstances, the impugned order are not only contrary to the order passed by this Court dated 03.07.2009 and also contemptuous, accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.11.2009 is set aside and directing the respondents to grant L.T. Grade with effect from 01.01.1986 and selection grade pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986 and release the differential amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that authorities are also directed to revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad