HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Aggeal No.287 l 2009 DB: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J, Es Hon’ble Shri Rajeshwar Lal Jhanwar,J. Sarveshwar Dayal Mishra Aged about 50 years, S/o Late Shri B.D. Mishra, Presently postsd as Lscturer at Govt. Hr. Secondaiy School Sector—11, Bhilai, R/o MIG-I/841, HVDCD, hilai Nagar, District Durg(CG) APPELLANT Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through ths Secretary, School Education Department Ministxy D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG), 2. Pn'ncipal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Somani, Tah 65 District Rajnandgaon(CG) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 ‘1) OF CHHAT‘I‘ISGARH N BENCH ACT 2006 H COURT APPEAL TO DIVISIO HIG Aggearance: Shri H.BvAgrawa1, learned Sr. Advocate with Shii Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. ‘Shri U.N.S.Deo, learned Government Advocate with Shri SK. Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State] respondents. ORAL ORDER (28.10.2009) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Heard. 6th August, 2009, passed Being aggrieved by the order dated in W.P.(S.) No.580/ 2005, whereby, the Writ petition was dismissed B z W.A. 287/2009 by the learned. Single Judge of this Com, the appellant] peu'tioner has med this Writ Appeal. 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: The appellant] petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Kawardha on 7th November, 1983. After the appointment, he has asked to teach higher classes. This was done on the basis of the circular (Annexure R- 1) filed in the Writ Petition, wherein, it was stated that in case of necessity, post graduate and B.Ed. senior teachers may be assigned the teaching responsibility oticlass 11th and 12th also. ii. Since the ' appellant was assigned with the duty of teaching higher secondaxy classes, he filed an Original Application before the Tribunal, which was ultimately, registered as W.P.(S.)No.580/ 2005 in the High Comtjfor a direction to the respondents to pay him the salary and give other service advantages at par with the lecturers since 1983 i,e. from the date of the said work assigned to him. Alternan‘vely, he also prayed for payment of 10 percent extra salary in pursuance of the government’s policy decisions, referred to in the petition. E 3. The learned Single Judge observed vide para 4 that it was not the case of the appellant that he was performing his duty by teaching middle classes in addition to higher classes i.e. class 11th and 12th. The learned Singh Judge further obServed that a query was made from the counsel for the appellant as to Whether the appellant was directed to do more work than the Upper Division Teachers, learned counsel submitted that the duty hours and the period the appellant was required to take classes were one and the same. The‘claim was made that since he was teaching class 11th and 12th students, he was entitled to additional] special pay. The learned Single Judge also observed that the appellant failed to / W.A. 287/2009 prove that he was performing extxa duty and as such, he was entitled to the special pay. 4. The contention of the Government before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant was assigned the responsibility of teaching class 11th and 12th from 1986 to 1991 in subsu‘tution of his work of teaching middle school classes and in such a situation, no additional work was given to the appellant and the appellant was not " . entitled to any special pay at the rate of 10 percent as claimed by him. 5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the appellant has not discharged any additional funcn‘on by taking periods of higher classes i.e. class ll‘h and 12th more than what he was required to take in lower classes. In total, the apellant was not performing any extra duty in lieu of teaching lower classes. The said incident will not amount to extra or additional work and as such, the appellant was not entitled to any beneflt under the circulars issued in this regard by the government, 6. Shri H.B. Agrawal, leamed senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, relied on the circulars dated 03.01.1989 and 30. 11. 1988. 7. A perusa of the circular dated 30m November, 1988 would show that it relates to performance of the work in addition to the original work allotted to the government servant. That means, this circular would be only applicable in cases where the government servants are performing additional duties than their original duties, which they were already performing for the substantive post held by them. 8. So‘far as circular dated 03rd January, 1989 is concerned, that also speaks about the additional work to be taken from the government servants. i l 9. Present is not the case, in which, some additional work was being takan from the appellant. The appellant was only assigned with the work of teaching to the higher classes, which was not in addition to the Work of teaching to the middle classes. Therefore, these circulars would not be applicable in the case of the appellant/petitioner. The View taken by the learned Single Judge appears to be conect View in the matter. 10. We do not find any inhrmity or illegality in the said order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merits, The same is liable to be at sunita ’ motipn stage itself. hereby Sd/— ”i“ Sunil ‘ ~zS—\d/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Sunil Kumar Sinha i ‘