State of M.P. and Others vs Suresh Chand Gupta

Heard on I.A. No. 3326/2012, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Looking to the facts of the case and the fact that there is 109 days delay in filing the appeal and counsel for the respondents has no objection for condonation of delay, application (I.A. No. 3326/2012) is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

Heard on admission.

This appeal has been field against the order dated 13-12-2011 passed in W.P. No. 1850/2004.

The respondent was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dt. 03-02-1996 on probation for a period of two years. As per order of appointment, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of 1200-2040. It is further mentioned in the order of appointment dt. 03-02-1996 that he shall be on probation for a period of two years and during the aforesaid period he would get fixed pay of Rs. 1200/-. Subsequently, the Government revised the pay scale in accordance of M.P. Pay Revision Rules 1998 (hereinafter referred as ''Rules of 1998''). These rules came into forces w.e.f. 1-1-1996. The pay scale of 1200-2400 was revised to pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. It is mentioned in the Rules of 1998 that following grade of Government employees would not be covered by the Rules:-

Deputy Director, School Education vide circular dt. 2-12-1998 granted sanction to revise pay scale to Assistant Teachers, who were appointed of fixed pay of Rs. 1200/- and held that teachers shall be eligible fixed pay of Rs. 4000/-. When the respondent was not granted the aforesaid pay scale, he filed a writ petition before this Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

Learned Government Advocate for the appellants/State has contended that the respondent was a probationer appointed of a fixed pay, hence, he is not eligible to receive pay scale.

In our opinion, the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate for the appellants/State is misconceived. Pay scale of Rs. 1200-2400 was revised to Rs. 4000-6000 in accordance with the Rules of 1998. As mentioned earlier, the probationer was not excluded from the operation of the rules. The respondent was appointed in accordance with the provision of rules. Hence, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant would be eligible to get fixed pay of Rs. 4000/- in place of 1200/- from the date of his joining i.e. 9-2-1996. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.