HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 18916 of 2005 DATED 11th November, 2011. BETWEEN D.Kaladhara Rao and anr …….Petitioners And Government of AP, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education (PS.III Dept), Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ……Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 18916 of 2005 ORDER: The facts, which are not in dispute, are that: The Aided Elementary School, Kasipatnam, Ananthagiri Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, established by the fourth respondent during the year 1942 was granted permanent recognition under the proceedings dated 28.4.1965 of the District Educational Officer, Visakhapaltnam, the third respondent herein. The said school was granted three grant-in-aid posts. Due to poor economic strength and fall in attendance, two grant-in-aid posts along with the teachers holding these posts were transferred to the other nearby schools during the academic year 1983-84. In the year 1990, the fourth respondent-school appointed the petitioners and another, by name S.Satyanarayana in the posts of Teachers on 23.7.1990, 20.10.1990 and 1.12.1991 respectively though the school was ordered to be closed under the proceedings dated 7.4.1983 of the District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam. Writ Petition No.7924 of 1991 filed by the aforesaid teachers seeking to approve the appointments and release the grant-in-aid was disposed of by this Court directing the Government to constitute a Committee to consider the irregular appointments and to regularize their services if they have fulfilled all the conditions prescribed for such appointments. Thereupon the Committee so constituted considered and rejected the candidature of the petitioners. Thereafter the fourth respondent filed Writ Petition No. 11027 of 1999 seeking a direction to the Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No. 301, dated 25.09.1997 to reconsider the issue, pursuant to which, after perusal of the relevant material and report of the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, dated 9.1.2002, the first respondent reconsidered and passed an order in Memo No.20627/PS-1/1997, dated 3.12.2002, the operative portion of which reads as under: “ In view of the above circumstances, Government after careful consideration of the entire matter and hereby relaxed Rule 15 of G.O.Ms.No. 524, Education, dated 20.12.1985 and permitted the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to regularize the services of the services of two teachers viz., Sri D.Kaladhara Rao and Sri P.Krishna Rao with effect from 23.07.1990 and 20.10.1990 respectively appointed by the Teacher Manager of Aided Elementary School, Kasipatnam. Regarding the third teacher post Sri S.Satyanarayana was already resigned and in his post Sri A.Devudu was appointed on 12.8.2001, the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderbad is requested to issue necessary instructions to the District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnham for approval of appointment made in that post duly obtaining necessary proposal from the Manager, subject to fulfillment of conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 1.1.1994.” Some time thereafter, vide order dated 5.5.2003 the two grant-in-aid posts from Bethel Aided Primary School, Anakapally were transferred to the fourth respondent-school with retrospective effect from 1.7.1997. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they submitted several representations to implement Memo No.20627/PS-1/1997, dated 3.12.2002 of the first respondent to regularize their services with effect from the date of their appointment, i.e. from the year 1990 and pay all the back wages with all attendant benefits as per their eligibility and entitlement, no action has been taken by the respondents as yet. The third respondent-District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam, filed a counter, whereunder, in paragraph 4 it is stated as under: “ …….Government issued orders in Govt. Memo No.17066/PS-II/2003, dated 15.12.2006 and in Procs. Rc.No.1085/B1-1/1999 dated 30.12.2006 of the Director of School Education for regularization of the services of two SGTs i.e. Sri D.Kaladhar and SriP.Krishna Rao, SGTs working in Aided Ele.School, Kasipatnam of Ananthagiri Mandal. Accordingly, the services of the two teachers were regularized w.e.f. 1.7.1997 duly treating their previous service from the date of their appointment i.e. 23.7.1990 and 21.10.1990 respectively to 30.6.1997 as un-aided and without any monetary benefits and fixed their pay notionally w.e.f. 1.7.1997 in the minimum time scale of SGTs duly giving monetary benefit w.e.f. from the date of issue of Govt. Memo i.e. from 15.12.2006 subject to out come of SLP.No. 4828/2006 pending in the Supreme Courte filed against the judgment ……….” (Emphasis added) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that action of the respondents in not paying the monetary benefits entitled to the petitioners with effect from 1.7.1997, the date on which their services were regularized, instead paying the same with effect from the date of issue of the Government memo i.e. from 15.12.2007 is wholly unreasonable and unsustainable. He placed strong reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Govt. of AP Vs. GVK Girls High School (AIR 2000 SC 2651) and State of HP Vs. HP State Recognized & Aided Schools Managing Committees {(1995) 4 SCC 507). Heard both sides. Perused the case file. In ‘State of HP Vs. HP State Recognized & Aided Schools Managing Committees’ ( supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that the teachers working in the aided schools are entitled to the same salaries and allowances as are being paid to the Teachers in the Government Schools. In ‘Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh Vs. State of Haryana’ { (1998) 4 SCC 571}, the Apex Court was of the opinion that the teachers of aided schools must be paid the same pay scale and dearness allowance as teachers in the Government Schools for the entire period claimed by them. In ‘Government of AP Vs. GVK Girls High School’ (1996 (3) ALT 820), a Division Bench of this Court, affirmed the view expressed by the learned single Judge that Section 42 of the A. P. Education Act provides for setting apart a sum of money for the grant-in-aid, which is in the nature of annual budget allotment towards grant-in-aid and once such allotment is made in the budget, the arrears of grant- in-aid have to be adjusted from out of the allocation and Sec. 42 cannot be invoked to avoid payment of arrears which are legitimately due to the educational institutions; and that the institutions cannot be deprived of their right to get grant-in-aid on the ground that the economic capacity of the Government does not permit; and that the right of the petitioners (aided teachers/aided institutions) to get grant-in-aid will accrue, provided the conditions enumerated in the A. P. Education Act, 1982 are satisfied and that in view of the above, the aided teachers are entitled to the arrears of grant-in-aid. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the two aided posts transferred earlier to the other schools were re-transferred to the fourth respondent- school pursuant to the request of the Director of School Education to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from 1.7.1997. However, the same was done without any monetary benefit, fixing their pay notionally with effect from 1.7.1997 duly giving monetary benefit with effect from the date of issue of the order dated 15.12.2006 etc.,. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court (Supra) denial of the arrears of pay (back wages) and other benefits from the date of regularization i.e. with effect from 1.7.1997 is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court (supra) and as such the petitioners cannot be deprived of getting their arrears of pay and other benefits to which they are entitled to from the date of their regularization, instead from the date of issue of the order. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down in the decisions of the Apex Court (supra), the respondents are directed to pay arrears of pay and other statutory benefits as per the then existing pay revisions to the petitioners with effect from the date of regularization of their services i.e. 1.7.1997 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 11th November, 2011. Msnro