AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Proceedings of this matter have been taken up through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is entitled for two upgraded pay scales on the basis of Circular dated
21.03.1983, first upgraded pay scale has already been given to the petitioner, whereas order impugned has been passed relying upon the Circular dated
03.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has already retired on 31.07.2003 from the post of Head Master
and, as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and support the impugned order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions hereinÂabove and went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
The petitioner has retired on 31.07.2003 from the post of Head Master, whereas the case of the petitioner has been decided on the basis of Circular
dated 03.10.2008 which is much after the date of retirement of the petitioner and held that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of second
upgraded payÂscale, whereas the case has to be decided on the basis of circular which was in force on or before the date of petitioner's retirement
i.e. 31.07.2003.
In that view of the matter, the order impugned vide Annexure â€" P/8 is hereby quashed. The respondentÂState is directed to consider the case of
the petitioner for grant of second upgraded payÂscale on the basis of the circular which is in force on or before the date of petitioner's retirement i.e.
31.07.2003 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observation/direction the instant writ petition stands disposed of.