l^ ^^ .BaEORS.gi'Al'S AQIlKlsa'A:n¥I;.,IRIBy];.iM,_j»I_JABAPUR '^/ * .-'-iK /'99. PE^IXOlii&Ri ? Gagaa. Ch&nd Jain, s/o Late Snri bhohare Lal Jain. aged about 58 years,' Ass't- teache.c', ri/Q Ci3.huikhad.an, Rajnandgaoni.MP) V^fci.SUS . E^SPONIHIS; 1<» , \t: 1. Statg of MP through i-ts secrstary, •' Educa'c.i.on Ospartfflent, . ! . ' Bhopal:. ; ! ' : . ! - • 2, The'D.i-rec'fcor, Public Instruction, .Area-colonyi-iiaog-al, . 3. 'T.u.e •Jotnt.Directop^PablicInstruction Surg,.. - . . ,• :4. Ine Principal uoyerrunent Higher, • . aecoaa.ary scriool, ' • \ : . Chfauickh.adan, . .'• Uis't't-'RaJn.anuggon. ' ' . . / 5. TB.e.Dy. ui.rec-fcor publiclnstruction-s" Kavarda 3urg. • •' ' .- Q. '^ FSTITIOi; 'u/3"19 OF'rHB AFMlNISIX!RAKy3 'raBUNa1 AC"£ 1985. 1-. 2 Ea^^cy;k^^J3rL-^^_I^tet^on:'2r.*. •' As issr-'causa -tJ-t3.e. ;• • ', -. • ,'' . '..,• • • •S'ar'fcicular.s of :the ;Re®>on.clen-fcs; . ' '.. "1, \J' •:'"1 ,: As'?er'cau3e titl.e.'"' ; • -: • ;! . ';-••i'— Par'tj.culp.i*s..of tas -order agaias'c vhich tfae'a.g'iffiaa-g?'. ^Sf^ .,y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (S) No. 1523/2005 Gagan Chand Jain Versus The State ofM.P. (now C.G.) and others ORDER POST ON i^lAY, 2010 <§ A<» ^atv &l'3u^e ^SKtw°s fta-va 't'.;( ?:-t S't B~ ,3SS ii 'VSSSf^ 1 ^ • "-^§7°^, i^ f £, "'"'';t?t ^ '%». t^-'^•^./ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHMVASTAVA.J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition IS) No. 1523/2005 Gagan Chand Jain Versus The State ofM.P. (now C.G.) and others Appearance: Shri H. S. Ahluwalia, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. iiriiff -<' ORDER (Passed on t> .05.2010) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming pay-scale of Craft Teacher right from his mitial appointment w.e.f 1.8.1958 as Craft Teacher vide order dated 9.9.1958 (Annexure A-l). 2. Case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 9.9.1958 (Annexure A-l), petitioner was appointed as Craft Teacher in the pay-scale of Rs.60- 120/- by respondent No.S/Dy. Director Public Instructions, Kawardha. Petitioner passed the examination in the trade of Cutting and Tailoring in the year 1957-58 from the Central Training Institute and Industrial Training Centre, Koni, District-Bilaspur. A copy of the certificate to this effect has been placed on record as Annexure A-2. On 30.12.1985, Assistant Internal Audit Officer, Audit 8s Pay Fixation Team, Treasuiy 8s Accounts, Rajnadgaon prepared an objection (Annexure P-3) to the effect that though the petidoner has been appointed as Craft Teacher on 1.8.1958, he is being given pay-scale of Rs.50-125/- and 90-170/- unified and revised, whereas he is entitled to pay-scale of Rs. 110-250/- •&--^^ ^ ,€ ^ '::;l\ '"-^^if<S> / •v^.^»\ ^- •t-:'— -2- -T"' and 150-290/- in unified and revised pay-scale and his entitlement may be examined as per orders of the Govemment and if necessary, correction may be made in his service book. It was also stated in the said objection that the case of the petitioner may be referred to D.S.E., Durg for necessary orders. Petitioner preferred a representation on 20.2.1986 (Annexure A-4) to respondent No-2/Director Public Instructions claiming appropriate fixation of his pay as Craft Teacher. Thereafter, representations dated 16.6.1995 (Annexure A-5) and 12.12.1995 (Annexure A-6) were also made. 3. Submission of leamed counsel for fhe petitioner is that as the pedtioner was appointed as Craft Teacher, he was entitled to pay in the pay-scale of Craft Teacher which was illegally withheld and not paid to hira. In reply to objection raised vide Annexure A-3 by the Assistant Intemal Audit Officer, no decision was taken. Representations were made by the petitioner which was also not considered. Petitioner, therefore, is entitled to grant of pay in the pay-scale of Craft Teacher from the date ofhis initial appointment i.e. 1.8.1958. 4. Respondents in their return have stated that though, initially, the petitioner was appointed as Craft Teacher on 1.8.1958 by order dated 9.9.1958 (Annexure A-l) in the pay -scale of Rs.60-120/-, the order was revised by the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Raipur on 21.7.1960, whereby he was appointed on fhe post of Lower Division Teacher in the pay-scale of Rs.45-100/-. Ever since this order was passed, petitioner worked only as Lower Division Teacher till the date of his retirement i.e. 30.4.1997. Learned counsel for the respondents therefore submits that as the petitioner was later on appointed as •-;:Bi*j. {:.f "- ' . ''•i^':?;~T . —..:'.' ' -3- Lower Division Teacher on 21.7.1960, he could not claim pay-scale of the Craft Teacher. Further submission of leamed counsel for the respondents is that from time to time as and when revision of pay-scale took place, petitioner exercised his options for revised pay-scale under various pay revisions implemented on the recommendation of Pay Commissions. The petitioner submitted his option for revision of pay for the post of Lower Division Teacher in Pandey Pay Commission on 30.4.1983. Thereafter, he also submitted his option for grant of revised pay-scale on the post of Lower Division Teacher under Choudhary Pay Commission in the year 1997. It is further submitted that order dated 21.7.1960 by which appointment of the petitioner was revised and he was appointed as Lower Division Teacher, has neither been challenged nor could be challenged after such a long period by filing instant petition in the year 1997. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the petition filed by the pedtioner is liable to be disniissed as it suffers from gross and unexplained delay and laches. Last submission of leamed counsel for the respondents is that in the entire petition, petitioner did not disclose this fact that his appointment was later on revised and he was granted pay-scale of Rs.45-100/- which was the pay applicable for the post of Lower Division Teacher. This fact has been suppressed. Petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. Referring to option submitted by the petitioner on 13.4.1983 (Annexure A-2) and 28.8.1987 (Annexure A-3), it has been submitted that the petitioner gave his option for revision of pay-scale as Lower Division Teacher only without raising any dispute and therefore he could not later on tum-round and start claiming pay- scale for the post of Craft Teacher. -4- '"% "••iSES 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. A perusal of the extract of service book of the petitioner filed by the respondents as Annexure R-l shows that vide order dated 21.7.1960 passed by the Divisional Superintendent of Education, petitioner was kept in the pay-scale of Rs.45-100/-. Petitioner, though, filed a .-< rejoinder, the assertion in the return fhat the appointment of the petitioner was subsequently revised and he was appointed as Lower Division Teacher in the pay-scala of Rs. 45-100/- vide order dated 21.7.1960 has not been disputed. In fact in the rejoinder, petidoner has not made any avemients with regard to his appointment as Lower Division Teacher in the pay-scale of Rs.45-100/-. Having not disputed £he said position, though neither the petitioner nor respondents have placed on record copy of order dated 21.7.1960, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve what has been stated by the respondents in their return to the effect that petitioner's appointment was later on revised and he was appointed as Lower Division Teacher in the pay- scale of Rs.45-100/-. Even the extract of service book which have been placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R-l, containing entry regarding passing of order dated 21.7.1960, appointing the pedtioner in the pay-scale of Rs.45-100/-, has not been disputed. Petitioner has not challenged the legality and validity of the said order, rather this fact has been suppressed. The petition otherwise also suffers from gross delay and laches. If the petitioner had any grievance with regard to he being placed in the pay-scale of Rs.45-100/- vide order dated 21.7.1960, petitioner ought to have taken remedy as may be available to him under the law. This \ was not done. Petitioner is not entitled to claini any benefit on the basis -r-tefi '-•; :f&i""'% '\ ' N) ^ B -5- ^. fif' -r of the objection (Annexure A-3) which for the first tiine was raised on 30.12.1985 by the Audit Officer. 7. It is not a case where the relevant entries in the service book of the petitioner and order dated 21.7.1960 was ever brought to the notice of the said authority. As and when occasion arose for revision of pay under various pay revision in the year 1985 and 1997, petitioner submitted his option for revision of pay in the pay-scale prescribed for the post of Lower Division Teacher without raising any protest. Petitioner made one representation on 20.2.1986. Thereafter, he took no steps until he preferred representations on 16.6.1995 (Annexure A- 5) and 12.12.1995 (Annexure A-6). Petitioner retired on 30.4.1997. It is not a case where the petitioner, though belatedly, calls in question the correctness oforder dated 21.7.1960. 8. Reliance placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matters of M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors.1 85 Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others2 is misplaced. In the case of M.R. Gupta (supra), the petitioner was aggrieved by incorrect fixation of his pay. Case of the petitioner was that his fixation of initial pay was not in accordance with rules and it was submitted that it was a case of continuing wrong. It was in this factual background that the Supreme Court held that a fresh cause of action arises every month when monthly salary is paid on the basis of a wrong coinputation made contrary to rules. Present is not a case of continuing wrong. On 21.7.1960, order was passed whereby the 1 AIR 1996 SC 669 2AIR1974SC 259 -6- B» 1.!*'. .^ .;''••">.^'"- ,. ^'QSSS^'"" petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.45-100/-. Present is not a case where the petitioner has come out with allegation that having been appointed as Lower Division Teacher in the pay-scale of 45-100/-, his salaiy was being paid on the basis of wrong computation made contraiy to the rules. In the case of Ramchandra Shankar (supra), though there was delay of more than 12 years in filing petition since the accrual of the cause of complaint, considering the peculiar facts of that case, it was held that in view of representation made by the respondent therein fhat the rules had not been unified and the petitioner therein continued to be govemed by the rules of Ex-Hyderabad State and another rules had nd application, petitioner was justified in proceeding on the assumption that there were no unified rules of recruitment and proniotions which were being niade were only provisional, to be regularized as and when unified rules were to be made. It was only when the petitioner came to know that the Government took stand in the Court that the petitioner challenged the action. The aforesaid decision, therefore, is distinguishable on facts. There also, Supreme Court held that each case inust depend on its own facts. In this view of the matter apart froin the petition being grossly delayed, on merit also, petitioner has no case. 9. In the final analysis, instant petition is liable to be disniissed and is a<?cordingly dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^