'< -'' \, ^ rS' «••' IN iH^^SJ^lJiSlSJ.-SE.Jl nisc. pot.-fc-on c^ • P.^7/, £B£i.t.l.S13£i B i! S.SMsiSQ.SS.t.S.i i i4' Dnkar Nsith panday agsc' 57 VEiars son of Shri'RuratdhiJaj prasad par.dsy Hsed flastsr, l.1iddle Siiction, Highar Sscandary School, Adbhar, Tshsil 3hakti Distt. Bilaspur', ,r1.P. . VS. 1. Tri.3 State of fl.p. thraigh tha Sacriitary, ,B5partrna-it of Educacicn piadhya pradesh, Bhopal,(1.p. 2. Ths il.Dtnmissisn of E.ducaticin, Bhopal, Fl.p. • 3. ®sputy Oirsctor of Educat.ioh , Janjgir, Qist.t;. BilaSpur, N..p. 4. Ths District [-.ducation Officsr,' Bilaspur, f1 .p. pETI T[ O N U NOc-Fi ,AriT. 226 OF THs. CDN3TITLITION OF •• ililOI.A FOrt uirtITS XN THi. MATUR^ .tiF Cc.aTIffl,l?a.,[<S NC,S[1US:.'JJ ^TC. Aid FDft .SPpriupalATt. FUftTH^ri DIri£CTION5 :'/•• IBI -Ja—l—LU—.-.^ <-.-.£_^~_ .(iIi;at'*'E-S,:,, f^, ^ f HIGILCQURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINM^BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SH^FVASTAV^A.J. Writ Pe«tionIS)^o.11/2005 PETITIONER Onkar Nath Pandey Versus RESPONDENTS State ofM.P. (now C.G.) and others ORDER sAi POST_ON %y'MARCH. 2010 ;<,asiava ..A.a^otlan ^^nul"3udg>e Ml HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIIASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHM MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (Sl No.11/2005 Onkar Nath Pandey Versus State of M.P {now C.G.) and others Appearance: Shri A.K. Pandey SE Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on ^'.03.2010) / 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of mandamus to respondents to Bx petitioner's seniority and pay on the post of Upper Division Teacher/I^ad Master with effect from 1.4.1962 and consequent fixation of pay in Tarachand, Pandey & Choudhary Pay- Scales. Petitioner has also prayed that consequent upon his fixation in the manner as prayed, he be also paid arrears of pay and allowances. It has also been prayed that petitioner's due seniority on the post of Head . Master/Upper Division Teacher be fixed reckoning his commencement of service w.e.f. 1.4.1962 on the post of Head Master/Upper Division Teacher. 2. Case of fhe petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Lower Division Teacher under Janpad Sabha, Shakti on 7.8.1953. Thereafter, on 19.8.1954, he was appointed as English Teacher and in the year 1958, he was placed on a higher salary. Petitioner completed his h k ; — -2- "^l <;•!. aii training and obtained Diploina in Education between the period 1958 to 1961. Thereafter, he was appointed as Head Master In charge on 1.4.1961. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was appointed as Head Master on regular basis w.e.f l.4.1962, he was granted pay- scale on the post of Lower Division Teacher only and instead of granting him pay-scale ofRs. 150-360/-, he was placed in the pay-scale ofRs.90-169/- applicable in respect ofLower Division Teacher . 3. With effect from 1.10.1963, Schools under Janpad Sabha and Panchayat were taken over by the State of Madhya Pradesh and petitioner was granted pay-scale of Rs.240-460/- applicable to Upper Division Teacher/Head Master. From the gradation list of 1984 showing seniority position of teacher as on 1.4.1984 (Annexure -A), petitioner came to know that two persons namely M.H. Panse 8s V.K. Bharat were shown in the category of Assistant District Inspector of Schools and shown entitled to pay-scale of Upper Division Teacher w.e.f. 20.12.1959 and 22.6.1960 respectively, but the petitioner was not granted the pay-scale and seniority of Upper Division Teacher though he was appointed as Head Master w.e.f. 1.4.1962. Vide memo dated 10.5.1971 (Annexure -B), District Education Officer, Bilaspur recommended to Sub Divisional Officer, Janpad Sabha, Shakti for appropriate fbtation of pay. Thereafter, petitioner made representation on 1.3.1987 (Annexure C) to the Commissioner ofEducation that he is entitled to fixation of pay and seniority w.e.f. 1.4.1962 on the post of Upper Division Teacher as was granted to M.H. Panse and V.K. Bharat. The said representation was followed by a legal notice dated 2.10.1986 (Annexure -D), but the grievance of the petitioner reinained un- redressed. ^., w / &,'^ ["T ^;:. i ^, y" ."-j ^ j3Moq jo ^sod sq^ uo psqjosq^ S^M sq '£96T"OT"T "J'a'M. ^uamuJSAOQ Aq siooqog sqt JSAO SUTSIB^ uodn fsv^ pssssjddns ApusiusAuoo mrep siq^'gmsrej snqA -isuoppsd "^sod fBvp. jo A(uoiu3s pu'e s^os-ABd of. psppus SBM 'Z96T'-l7'T 'J"3"A J3l8Bp\i p'esH sv ps^urodd'e uasq guiAi3i[ SL[ ^ip uopjsssB uo pss^q ST J3^S'B]/\[ pB3H/-I3t[3B3J, UOTSIATQ JSddfl jo s^Bos-Aed puB ^uoiuss jo ^UBJ§ JQJ jauoppsd sq^ jo uirep ajpus sqj, •^ •sp-ioosj avp. pasrusd pua sapj-ed sqi joj psunoo psujesi pj^sq aAsvi i 'g 'S96T'fr'T J'S'AY jsqo^sj, UOISTAIQ -i3ddn/j3^SBp\[ p'eapijo spos-ATd PUB Atuoiuas uirep o^ pappua iou si sq '£96T'OT'T 'J'S'A J3i.[3^9j, UOTSTAIQ JSMoq sv psqjosq^ SBA jsiuoppad sq^ SB tBLp Sup^iujqns Aq ps^sissj usaq siavi S96T'17'T J's'A^ -/06S-OST'SH jo s^eos-A^d jo IUBJ§ joj mrep s.jsuoppsd "psxg svfA Ssd jo spos-Aed PSSIASJ aqi ui ^Bd s^jsuoppad 'sis^q •FBV^ UQ •J3^SBp\[ p^SH ST3 SuiUOT^OUnj SVffi Sq S^ -/09'sy o^ pssrej 'uo W(B\ 'S'BM qoiqA '-/sg's^ jo SOU'BAO^ pa^u'ejS ^YBPIUT SBA jauoppsd vevft si s^uspuodssj aq^ jo ss^o '(T-H ajnxsuuy) 896T"£"6 •J'S-A -/06S-OST'sy J° si^as-Ad sq^ UT lavfava^ UOTSTAIQ jsddn jo ^sod sqi o^ p3touio.id SBM jguoppsd aqj, '-/OOT-917'sy jo si'eos-Aed 3Lp m ^\uo jsqo^sj, UOTSIAI(J JiaMoq jo isod aip uo jsuoppsd 3\y paqjosq^ ^USUIUJSAOQ aip 'Bqq^g p^duBp japun siooqog si.p JSAO Sui5[Bi uodn ^usnbssuos fevft pssopsip 3ABq ujn^sj jpq^ ui s^uspuodss-i 'BJ^UOO J3d •g •BTpuijo uopnipsuoo sq; jo 9T <i9 frT 3I3p-IVJO 3ATy3]p}A guisq uopBUTUiuosip ui ps^nss-i sjaq^o ipiM Suop Aed jo uop^xg snp psSa^ jo ^eiuap sq^ pu^ Z961'V1 '3'1 S^P 3np 3Vft UIOJJ 133JJ3 q^TA AtUOIUSS OS\V SV J3^SBp\[ P'BSH jo spos-Ated sqi o-t psppus SBA sq 'g96T"-b'T "J's"^ J3^s^]A[ P^SH s^ psiuiodd^ £[iey}S9i ST3A 3q SB ^Blp UOpJSSSB 3V[\ UO pSpUUOJ SF JSUOI^sd 3Lp jo tureio ••|7 -£- ^.,4i!ir^ -4- ^ ^-l' Division Teacher in fhe scale of pay of Rs.45-100/-. Prom the extract of service book of the petitioner placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R-l 6s R-II, it is found that the petitioner was absorbed in Govemment service w.e.f. 1.10.1963 vide D.E.O. order No. 1139 dated 30th November, 1966. In the entire petition, petitioner has nowhere challenged his absorption on the post of Lower Division Teacher, From the return of the respondents, it is disclosed that petitioner was promoted as Upper Division Teacher only w.e.f. 9.3.1968 as is reflected froin Annexure R-l. Petitioner has asserted that he was absorbed as Head Master w.e.f. 1.10.1963 and this fact is mentioned in the service book. However, from the extract of service book placed on record by the respohdents, it is nowhere recorded that the petitioner was absorbed as Head Master. Petitioner has also placed on record a Certificate (Annexure R E-l) issued by the Principal, Goyt. Higher Secondary School, Adbhar, District-Bilaspur showing that the petitioner was confirmed as Head Master, Middle School vide Resolution No.4 dated 26.10.1966 of Janbad Sabha, Shakti. However, the certificate was issuedon 2.2.1999. 8. From the above stated facts and documents, it appears that though the petitioner claims that he was entitled to pay and seniority on the post of Head Master/Upper Division Teacher from 1.4.1962, he was absorbed on a lower post of Lower Division Teacher w.e.f. 1.10.1963. Petitioner without challenging the legality and validity of the order of absorption on the lower post of Lower Division Teacher, has been raising claim for grant of pay and seniority on the post of Head Master w.e.f. 1.4.1962 on the strength that in the Janpad Sabha, he was appointed as Head Master w.e.f 1.4.1962 and later on, Janpad Sabha f~'l ^ -5- Q^ had also passed a Resolution on 26.10.1966 confirming him as Head Master, Middle School. It is apparent that the petitioner status as Head Master was not recognized and the petitioner was found qualified to be absorbed only on the post of Lower Division Teacher. This position remained unchallenged. Frora the m.em.0 dated 10.5.1971 (Annexure B), it is revealed that on petitioner's claim for re-fixation in higher pay- scale on the strength of he being a trained matriculate teacher, his case was forwarded by District Education Officer to the Sub Divisional Officer. Even at that point of time, petitioner did not approach any Court of law challenging his order of absorption on the lower post of Lower Division Teacher. After almost 20 years of his order of absorption on the post of Lower Division Teacher, a notice dated 2.10.1986 (Annexure -D) was served fallowed by representation dated 7.3.1987 (Annexure -C). Petitioner has also not placed on record the relevant rules/instructions relating to eligibility criteria for absorption to various posts including Upper Division Teacher/Head Master. In the opinion of this Court, in the absence of specific challenge to the legality and validity of the order of absorption on the post of Upper Division Teacher, claim of the petitioner is not sustainable. Moreover, this petition was filed in the year 1988 claiming relief regarding grant of pay-scale and seniority on the post of Head Master/Upper Division Teacher w.e.f. 1.4.1962, after alnaost 22 years of the order of absorption dated 30.11.1966 (noted in the extract ofservice book below Annexure R-2). It is apparent that the affairs relating to absorption attained finality in the year 1966 and the petitioner approached the Court for the first time in the year 1988 i.e. after about 22 years at the fag end of his retirement. Petitioner retired w.e.f. 31st December 1990 on attaining age of superannuation. Petition therefore suffers from ,,'"u, ' ^. b..-sM&s^ K ;£.gs"-Yi^ ''•;•-,...;^r -6- ^?^ undue delay and laches. Further, in view ofabove discussion, I do not find any merit in the petition. Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Praveen ^^a^ S^L^^ ^s^^ n n '•/, ;