Narayan Chandra Dey vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A., appearing for the State-respondents.

At the outset, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed in WP(C) No.1069 of 2016 delivered on 18.07.2017. In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for granting him the pay scale of a graduate teacher w.e.f. 01.01.1993 with all arrears i.e. from the date on which Budhai Saha Primary School was brought under the Grant-In-Aid scheme.

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a graduate teacher in the year 1990 when Budhai Saha Primary School at Briddhanagar was a private school. It was brought under Grant-In-Aid scheme vide order dated 19.12.1992 under reference No.F.10(10-39)-DSE/90 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura in the name of the Governor of the State. Accordingly, pay scale was sanctioned and granted to all the then existing teachers commensurate to their educational qualification. The grievance of the petitioner is that as he is a graduate teacher and served the school as a Graduate teacher, he is entitled to enjoy the pay scale of a Graduate teacher, at least, with effect from the date the school was recognized and brought under the Grant-In-Aid scheme i.e., w.e.f. from 19.12.1992.

In the communication vide memorandum dated 16.01.1999 issued by the Director of School Education, Tripura, it was informed to the Secretary, Budhai Saha Primary School that the petitioner, Sri Narayan Chandra Dey, A/T(Assistant-Teacher) and another Smt. Swapna Majumder, A/T(Assistant-Teacher) were entitled to one increment w.e.f. 01.01.1993 for acquiring higher qualification. In this connection, a circular of the Finance Department was also issued vide Office Memorandam No.F.4(62)-Fin(PC)/92 dated 07.12.1992.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that though acquisition of higher qualification was recognized and taken into account to grant one increment to the petitioner, but the pay scale in the case of the petitioner was determined as Under-Graduate teacher.

Smt. Swapna Majumder, a co-teacher was also an Under- Graduate teacher and during her service and before recognition of Budhai Saha Primary School as Grant-In-Aid school, she obtained higher qualification. She was granted the pay scale of Under-Graduate teacher. Being aggrieved, she filed a writ petition which was numbered as WP(C) No.1069 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 18.07.2017 allowing the pay scale of graduate teacher to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of her appointment.

The Court has made the following observations and directions in the said judgment dated 18.07.2017:-

"12. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Teacher under the primary school establishment. Thus, she was drawing the scale of pay for the under graduate teachers. The petitioner has asked for benefit of the said Memorandum dated 07.12.1992. Under the said Office Memorandum dated 07.12.1992, the petitioner is entitled to get the graduate scale but she was not given that benefit. In view of the decision as laid down in Mihir Debnath vs. State of Tripura and Others the petitioner's substantive appointment under the said school has to be treated from the date when the petitioner was appointed in the said school i.e. 28.06.1990. The substantive appointment shall be treated from 28.06.1990, even though the said school came under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme on 19.12.1992. Even in the memorandum dated 10.05.2013, the respondents did not mention whether the said Memorandum would get prospective effect or from any other definite date. Thus, since the petitioner has acquired the higher qualification i.e. the degree of graduation prior to the appointment, the petitioner shall be considered for granting her the graduate scale from 28.06.1990 in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 07.12.1992. The petitioner will not get any monetary benefit upto 31.12.1991, but as the petitioner has relinquished the period till 01.01.1993, this court is not required to make any endeavour about the benefits that would accrue from the period from 28.06.1990 till 01.01.1993. There cannot be any amount of doubt that one increment has been released but not in the graduate scale for acquisition of the degree of Bachelor of Arts, as stated.

Hence, the petitioner would be entitled to the graduate scale w.e.f. 28.06.1990 but since the petitioner has approached this court in a belated stage i.e. on 09.09.2016, the petitioner cannot get any pecuniary benefit for the entire period. As per the said memorandum dated 07.12.1992, there shall be no actual financial benefit till 31.12.1991. The petitioner shall be entitled to get the actual financial benefit from the date 3 years preceding the day of institution i.e. 10.09.2013. It is made clear that from the arrears that would accrue the amount paid as the increment shall be deducted. In terms of the Office Memorandum dated 07.12.1992, the grant of higher pay scale is based on acquisition of higher degree. For the special nature of such grant, the petitioner will not be entitled to any other consequential benefit whatsoever, including the seniority. The petitioner would continue in the said post till she is promoted to her superior post and her seniority in the said grade shall remain unaltered, unless otherwise provided by the competent authority. The respondents No.1 to 5 are directed to pay the petitioner the arrears of pay and allowances after due deduction as stated within a period of six months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order to the respondents.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs."

I heard Mr. D. Bhattahcharjee, learned G.A., appearing for the State-respondents.

Admittedly, the petitioner Sri Narayan Chandra Dey is similarly situated to that of Smt. Swapna Majumder(Rakshit), who was granted the pay scale of Graduate teacher as per the direction of the High Court from the date of her appointment. But, in similar situation, the petitioner was not extended the benefit of pay scale prescribed for Graduate Teacher. In my opinion, non-granting of pay scale prescribed for a Graduate teacher is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is entitled to enjoy the pay scale of the Graduate teacher as it was granted to Smt. Swapna Majumder, at least from the date on which the school was recognised and brought under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme by the respondents.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed granting the petitioner graduate pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1993. The respondents are directed to accord sanction of all arrears of pay treating the petitioner as graduate, granting the pay scale of graduate teacher w.e.f. 01.01.1993, however, not from the date of his initial appointment when the said Budhai Saha Primary School was a privately run school. The financial benefits shall be provided to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the appropriate authority concerned.

The instant writ petition is allowed in the above terms and thus disposed of.