WP(C) 2982/2007 BEFORE HONBLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY JUDGEMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) The petitioner’s grievance in essence, is projected against the denial of regular pay scale to him for the services rendered as a Language Teach er in Assamese at Bongaigaon Vidyamandir High School (hereinafter referred to a s the ’school’) since 30.10.1980. He has sought for a writ of mandamus for the release of his arrear dues pending with effect from 2.11.1987 computable on t he basis thereof. 2. I have heard Mr B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petition er and Mr MK Mishra, learned Standing counsel, Education Department for the offi cial respondents. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner’s case is that, he is a graduate in Arts and possesses the requisite qualifications for appointment as a Languag e Teacher in Assamese in graduate scale/cadre. On 30.10.1980 he was appointed as such in the school by the Managing Committee thereof. He joined the services immediately thereafter. The Government of Assam on 2.11.1987 created posts of As samese Language Teachers on adhoc basis with a lump sum pay of Rs.620/- for some schools and thereafter the Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 27.1. 1988 allotted the same to the institutions mentioned therein. The petitioner’s s chool figured in the list. Subsequently by order dated 25.3.1998 the petitioner’ s services in the aforementioned capacity was regularized with effect from 2.11. 1987 against the post allotted to the school. The Joint Director of Secondary Ed ucation, Assam by his communication dated 7.9.1998 conveyed the decision of the government sanctioning normalization of the posts mentioned in the order dat ed 27.1.1988 with effect from 1.3.1998 though the retention was made thereby u pto 28.2.1999. The same was thereafter extended from time to time. As inspite th ereof, the regular scale of pay, was not accorded, the petitioner submitted repr esentations before the concerned departmental authority to the said effect. Tho ugh official correspondences were exchanged whereby the proposal for release of the lump sum amount was made and eventually ,an amount of Rs.56,800/- was p aid to the petitioner, the issue of sanctioning pay scale to him remained to be finalizedIn the meantime, the Inspector of Schools, Bongaigaon District Circle, by his communication dated 17.1.2003 recommended the revision of the rate of pa y at Rs.3580/-. No final decision thereon was however , taken. According to th e petitioner, even his above mentioned fixed rate is not being paid monthly, tho ugh the same by all means is even less than the minimum rate of wages paid at present to the government employees holding posts subordinate to that of Assi stant Teacher. 4. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam in his affidavi t while admitting the facts pertaining to the allotment of posts , regularizati on of the services of the petitioner as well as the normalization of the posts , has in essence, pleaded that the petitioner’s claim for the regular pay scale is untenable as his school has not yet been provincialised. The answering resp ondent however, has disclosed that the issue with regard to the fixation of pay had been referred to the government by his letter No.PC/SEC/22/84/Pt-V/92 dated 3.5.2002 and the same is under process. 5. Mr Chakraborty has urged that the petitioner’s services havi ng been regularized against the post of Assamese Language Teacher sanctioned by the government, he is entitled to the corresponding scale of pay having re gard to the long years of service rendered by him. He has contended that in t he facts and circumstances of the case, the plea of non provincialisation of the petitioner’s school is not sustainable in law. According to the lear ned counsel, in any view of the matter, the rate of Rs.620/- per month being much lower than the minimum rate of wage payable in the State service , a writ of mandamus for granting the regular pay scale to the petitioner is warranted. Mr Chakraborty has submitted on instructions that the petitioner’s pay at the r ate of Rs.620/-per month has not been paid since 1.6.99. 6. Mr Mishra, while reiterating the pleaded stand of the respondent s has urged that as the petitioner’s school has not been provincialised, his cla im for regular pay scale is misconceived. In support of his submission, the lear ned Standing Counsel has produced the supplementary written instructions in the form of communications dated 16.2.2008 and 20.2.2008 of the Deputy Secretary t o the Govt.of Assam, Education Department and the Director of Secondary Educatio n, Assam respectively. 7. I have carefully considered the rival pleadings and the argumen ts advanced. The facts relating to the petitioner’s appointment and the allotmen t of the post of Assam Language Teacher in the school and the his continuance in service since 30.10.1980 till date are admitted. It is also not in disput e that the petitioner is being paid at the rate of Rs.620/- per month though the said sum ,according to the petitioner, is not released monthly, but together in lump sum. According to him, the arrears even at the said rate have not been released to him with effect from 31.5.1999. 8. The plea of the official respondents that for want of provincial isation of the petitioner’s school the regular pay scale as contemplated in l aw cannot be accorded to him on principle , is unimpeachable. Noticeably, the p ost against which the petitioner is continuing as on date had been sanctioned and allotted by the government amongst others for his school. However, the respo ndent authorities had made the arrangement on adhoc basis indicating that the same would carry a consolidated pay of Rs.620/- per month. The affidavit by th e Director of Secondary Education, Assam as well as the letter dated 20.2.2008 w ritten by him to the learned Standing counsel, Education Department and produced in course of the hearing, however, disclose in clear terms that on the lette r dated 3.5.2002 referred to hereinabove, the follow up steps have been taken , but the decision of the government on the issue of enhancing the rate of pay is pending as on date. The said letter reveals the contention that the employee s of the recognized institutions are not entitled to the regular scale of pay as of those in provincialised institutions along with other facilities avail able to the government employees. The letter however, reveals that the slab of adhoc grant sanctioned for the recognized schools for maintenance of staff( t eaching and non teaching ) for High schools imparting education upto Class X is at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. The petitioner has asserted in the writ p etition that though for similarly situated persons serving as Bodo Language Te achers in various schools of the State the rate of their salary at Rs.1375/- per month has since been revised to Rs.3850/- per month , but the petitioner is still languishing at the old rate of Rs.620/- per month till date. The Inspect or of Schools, Bongaigaon District Circle, Bongaigaon vide his letter dated 17. 1.2003 had recommended the pay at the revised rate of Rs.3580/- for the petiti oner as well , but the said proposal as on date has not been acted upon. 9. The facts as stated hereinabove therefore, demonstrate that the issue with regard to enhancement of the rate of pay to the petitioner and the other similarly situated persons holding the posts sanctioned on 2.11.1987 is u nder the active consideration of the government , though no decision thereon ha s yet been taken. Admittedly, the rate of adhoc grant for the recognized instit utions in the State for the maintenance of their staff for imparting educati on upto Class X is Rs.2000/- . The petitioner’s contention that persons similar ly situated have been favoured with the higher rate of pay at Rs. 3850/- per m onth as pleaded by him in the facts and circumstances cannot be brushed aside. By any standard, the rate of Rs.620/- per month, is lower than the minimum rat e of wage payable to the persons holding posts subordinate to that of the Assi stant teachers in State service. 10. True, it is that a decision to provincialise an academic instit ution is one which normally lies in the exclusive domain of administrative disc retion. This Court therefore refrains from issuing any mandamus to the said e ffect. The petitioner is left at liberty to submit or cause to be submitted a representation before the appropriate departmental/State authority for the provi ncialisation of his school and consequent sanction of scale of pay. If such a re presentation is filed, the concerned State authority would take an appropriate d ecision considering the factual background involved. However, as admittedly, the process with regard to the grant of higher rate of pay to the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates/persons is unde r consideration at the appropriate level of the government, this Court considers it expedient to fix a time frame for the completion thereof. As the letter dat ed 20.2.2008 referred to hereinabove in clear terms mentions that the recognize d schools imparting education upto Class X have been paid the adhoc grant for the maintenance of the staff @ Rs.2000/- per month, in the opinion of this Court , the petitioner as a temporary measure is entitled to be paid at that rate. O rdered accordingly. The petitioner would be sanctioned the pay at the above rat e from the month of May,2008. The respondent authorities would also take exped itious steps for computation of his arrear dues at the rate of Rs.620/- per mo nth from 1.6.1999 and release the same at an early date. The exercise as abov e, pertaining to the enhancement of pay pending decision of the government and computation of the arrear dues as ordered, having regard to the facts and circ umstances of the case, should be completed within a period of two(2) months fro m the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Needless to mention t hat in the event of a decision to provincialise the petitioner’s school, be wo uld be accorded a pay scale commensurate with his post and his service dues the reafter would be computed and released on the basis thereof. No costs.