Md Abdus Samad Sheikh vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors

1) The petitioner before this Court was appointed as a Science Teacher on 31st December, 2000 in the Popular G/A Upper Primary School Gandhimari, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. The grievance of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that the respondents are not paying him the correct salary and that certain arrears have accumulated which have not been made over to him. The petitioner also claims that he is a teacher teaching against a sanctioned post entitled to higher pay. As such, prayer has been made payment of salary at the enhanced rate and for release of the arrears salary as payable against a sanctioned post.

2) Ms. A. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was paid only Rs. 5,000/- per month instead of Rs. 16,000/- from January, 2017 to May, 2017, the latter, which is the salary payable to a sanctioned teacher, and as such the petitioner is entitled to arrears in salary amounting to Rs. 55,000/- for the said period. The second submission as advanced, is that the respondents should have paid the petitioner the full enhanced salary of Rs. 16,000/-per month w.e.f. June, 2017 till date, which learned counsel contends is the salary of a sanctioned teacher. The learned counsel argues that the claim has been made in view of the fact that the Government of Meghalaya, in the Education Department vide letter dated 19th June, 2017 had approved for increasing the Grant-in-aid to 844 Adhoc Upper Primary Schools, and as per this increase in aid, the salary of Head Teachers and Assistant Teachers were enhanced to Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 16,000/- respectively w.e.f. January, 2017. As such, she prays that a mandamus be issued to direct the respondents both State and Private to release the arrears in salary and to pay the petitioner the enhanced salary.

3) Mr. H. Abraham, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 submits that the claim of the petitioner is not supported by any official orders, and moreover the norms as referred to by the petitioner relate only to SSA Upper Primary Schools administered under the provisions of the Right to Education Act and not to Adhoc Upper Primary Schools which are administered by the State Government under the general norms. He further submits that the concerned School has not been put under the Improved System, but however, the School follows the norms of 4(four) sanctioned teachers and that the Managing Committees of such schools, maintain additional teachers from their own resources. He also submits that the petitioner not having been appointed against a sanctioned post, and moreover the salary as claimed not being as per the norms followed for such schools, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same should be dismissed.

4) Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 i.e. the School Managing Committee submits that the School Managing Committee manages and runs the School by distributing the lump sum grant as received from the State Government proportionately amongst the teachers in order of seniority and posts they are holding. He also submits that the writ petitioner is well aware of the conditions of employment and entitlements that would accrue to him in the said post. As such, learned counsel submits, the petitioner cannot at this stage make a claim for payment of a salary which is unrealistic and not applicable to the said school, inasmuch as, the School is not receiving the Improved Grant-in-aid. He further submits that the writ petitioner had on many earlier occasions signed the Resolutions whereby the Respondent No 6 (managing Committee) had fixed the salaries of the teachers in the school as per their respective entitlements. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner however has suddenly on a mistaken assumption as to entitlement has raised the instant dispute which is totally unwarranted and uncalled for. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner in view of his claim for enhanced salary has not come to withdraw his salary from the month of April, 2018 till date.

5) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6) At this stage however, before this Court could record its findings, Ms. A. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the situation as it pertains, the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to the effect that the petitioner be paid his due salary as fixed by the Resolution of the Respondent No. 6 (Managing Committee) of Rs. 9020 (Rupee Nine Thousand Twenty only) regularly, and that also the petitioner will undertake to withdraw the arrear salary as due. She further submits that the petitioner be allowed the liberty to approach this Court again if a fresh cause of action arises.

7) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties especially the concessions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that the petitioner be paid the salary as fixed by the Managing Committee by its various Resolutions and stands currently at Rs. 9020, regularly and further that he be allowed to withdraw the arrears salary as due. Needless to add liberty as sought, is not necessary to be allowed by this Court as in the event a new cause of action arises it will be well within the petitioner's rights to seek legal remedy.

8) With the above noted directions the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.