WP(C) 179/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioners were deputed for 10 months training in Central Institutes for In dian Languages (CIIL) in different locations in the Country as teachers working in recognized (non-provincialized) schools in Assam. According to the norms in f orce for the duration of training, the trainees were entitled to lump sum amount of Pay equivalent to the minimum basic of the Pay Scale. Accordingly the depute d teachers from Assam were paid Rs.3580/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred ei ghty) per month by the concerned Institutes. 2. The petitioners however claim that apart from the aforesaid amount of Rs .3580/- per month, they are entitled to receive additional amount for Dearness A llowance (DA), House Rent Allowance (HRA) & Medical Allowance (MA) and on this b asis, each teacher trainee should receive a higher amount than Rs.3580/- per mon th for the training which were conducted during Session 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. 3. Mr. N.N. Upadhaya, learned Counsel refers to the communication dated 4.1 2.2001 of the Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Assam to the Director of t he CIIL, Mysore to show that trainees from other States in the same Institute we re getting higher emoluments and accordingly recommendation was made to the Dire ctor of the CIIL, Mysore to allow the deputed teachers from Assam, to draw the a dditional Pay & Allowances. 4 The learned Counsel refers to the Last Pay Certificate given to one of t he petitioner by the Headmaster of his school to show that although at the time of deputation he was getting Rs.3580/- as his consolidated Pay, further amount(s ) by way of DA, HRA should be added to the payable salary of the deputed teacher s. 5. Mr. Upadhaya submits that petitioners were subjected to discrimination a s deputed teachers from other States received higher payment for training. 6. Representing the respondents, Mr. C. Barua and Ms. P. Gogoi, learned Cen tral Government Counsels submit that according to the office order dated 1.6.200 2 issued by the Asstt. Director of the CIIL, Mysore, the teachers from ad hoc/r ecognized schools will be entitled to a lump sum amount of Pay equivalent to th e minimum basic of the Pay Scale as mentioned in the Last Pay Certificate (L.P.C .) of the concerned teachers. They point out that no provision is made in this o ffice order, for payment of any additional amount under different heads like HRA /DA/MA. Accordingly the respondents contend that the petitioners are not entitle d to any higher amount than Rs.3580/- per month already paid to them, for the du ration of their training 7. The Government Counsel reads out averments in the counter affidavit to s how that the petitioners were working in ad hoc/recognized schools of Assam and were receiving lump sum Pay @ Rs.3580/- per month as mentioned in the communicat ion dated 20.3.2001 of the Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Assam and acc ordingly they submit that no higher amount for the petitioners is justified, by adding any other element to the said lump sum Pay. 8. As regards discrimination in payment to the trainees from Assam, Mr. Bar ua submits that the training amount is made dependent on the salary received by the teachers when they are deputed for training and teachers of provincialzed sc hools of Assam are permitted to draw higher amount, according to the office orde r dated 1.6.2002. Therefore difference in payment according to the respondent is no justification for a higher training pay for the petitioners. 9. From their pleadings and the submission the petitioners could not satisf y the Court that they received any other amount other than the lump sum Pay of R s.3580/- per month when they were deputed for training. In fact some of the teac hers in recognized schools may have received lesser salary than Rs.3580/-. If th at is the salary of the deputed teachers, considering the stipulation made in th e office order dated 1.6.2002, I see no justification for directing payment of a ny higher amount by the Institute for the trainees from Assam. 10. According to the norms, quantum of payment is dependent upon the pay of the deputed teacher and therefore if certain teachers drew higher emoluments, an d on that basis receive a better training allowance from the Institute, that can ’t be any basis for the petitioners to claim emoluments at par, since the amount is quantified with reference to the Pay of the deputed teacher. 11. As regards the further contention made that few of the trainees of Assam were given higher emoluments, it is contended by the Central Government Counsel that this was mistakenly given to some of the trainees and since the basis of t he emoluments is the last Pay drawn by the deputed teachers, there can be no jus tification for higher emoluments for the petitioners, on the ground that few wer e given higher emoluments on the basis of erroneous understanding of their entit lement. 12. The petitioners herein were granted training allowance by their respecti ve Institutes on the basis of the lump sum Pay drawn by them as teachers of reco gnized schools in Assam and since they were not paid any HRA/DA/MA while they we re serving in Assam, they in my view, can’t claim any higher amount than Rs.3580 /- per month already paid to them. If some of their colleagues were mistakenly g iven any higher amount, the respondents can’t be ordered to repeat the mistake f or paying more to the petitioners. 13. As regards the communication dated 4.12.2001 of the Deputy Director of S econdary Education, Assam, it is clearly mentioned therein that the petitioners were getting only Rs.3580/- per month when they were deputed for training and co nsidering the applicable norms for training payment, I am of the opinion that no higher amount is payable for them. 14. I further feel that earlier order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2457 /2007 (Shir Anwar Bhuyan and others vs. The Union of India and others), should not be repeated in the present case, since unlike on the previous occasion, the respondents have filed counter affidavit(s) and have given the justification for their stand. 15. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in these cases and the same a re accordingly dismissed without any cost.