Amit Babanrao Kakpure & Ors. vs Divisional Commissioner & Ors.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

The present petition challenges the order of respondent No. 1, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, passed on 23.08.2021, thereby refusing to grant the regular pay scale to the petitioners herein.

Facts, as can be seen from the averments made in the petition, are as under:

The petitioners were appointed as primary teachers in various schools run by respondent No. 2, Amravati Zilla Parishad, prior to the coming into force of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2009”). Admittedly, the petitioners were holding the qualification of B.Sc. at the time of their appointment. As per the Act of 2009, the qualification required for primary teachers is graduation. On 13.10.2016, the State of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution contemplating that there shall be one trained graduate teacher for teaching the subjects, i.e., Science, Language and Social Science, for the purpose of teaching higher primary standards, i.e., Standards VI to VIII. One important aspect of the said Government Resolution is that it grants graduate pay scale to only one-third out of the total teachers teaching Standards VI to VIII, on the basis of their seniority in the subject-wise seniority list. It is a matter of record that the said Government Resolution contemplates that when an employee, while entering into service, had the qualification of 10th or 12th Standard and D.Ed., but has subsequently acquired the qualification of graduation, such employee should be given the pay scale of a trained graduate teacher.

In the backdrop of these facts, respondent No. 2 issued an order and posted the petitioners against the vacant posts for the Science subject. The petitioners were, therefore, expecting the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016, but the same were not granted.

In the backdrop of these facts, the CEO of the Zilla Parishad, Amravati, granted graduate pay scale to some of the respondents. Two such orders have been appended at pages 99 and 100 as Annexure-XV to the petition. The petitioners, being deprived of the graduate pay scale, were constrained to challenge the said order of the CEO, Zilla Parishad, before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 23.08.2021, rejected the claim of the petitioners. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner has accepted the claim of the petitioners but has negated the claim only on the premise of the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016.

I have heard Mr. P. A. Kadu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D. M. Kale, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and Mr. C. A. Lokhande, learned AGP for the respondent-State.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P. A. Kadu, contends that the applicability of the Government Resolution and its legal efficacy have already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5563 of 2022 and companion writ petitions, in the case of Ganesh Mahadeo Asekar and others v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. In the said judgment, it has been categorically held that the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016 and, more particularly, Clause B of the Government Resolution is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, insofar as the petitioners therein are concerned. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P. A. Kadu, that the issue is no more res integra.

Per contra, Mr. D. M. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, even though does not dispute the position and, more particularly, the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, seeks time to ascertain whether the said judgment has been challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, vide order dated 20.07.2026, this Court has already granted time to Mr. D. M. Kale to ascertain the same. Today, Mr. Kale shows his inability regarding the said factual aspect. Looking to the fact that there is an authoritative pronouncement by the Division Bench in the writ petition referred to supra, I am of the considered opinion that the controversy involved in the present matter stands duly covered by the said judgment.

In view of that, following order is passed:

The order dated 23.08.2021 passed by respondent No. 1, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, refusing to grant the regular pay scale to the petitioners, is quashed and set aside.

ii) It is hereby declared that the petitioners, who are already working as subject teachers for Classes VI to VIII, are entitled to the benefits of the subject teacher pay scale from the date of their appointment to the posts of subject teachers, having acquired the requisite qualifications during the course of their service.

iii) It is also directed that the Zilla Parishad should pay the arrears, if any, to the petitioners from the date of their appointment or the date of acquiring the requisite qualification, as the case may be, within eight weeks from the date of this order.

The Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.