HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.17337 and 17358 of 2009 Date: 21.04.2010 Between : M.Devasahayam & another. …….Petitioners And A.P.Social welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary. …..Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.17337 and 17358 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : In view of the common grievance of the petitioners in both these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.17337 of 2009. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for appropriate writ, declaring the action of respondent- Society in not extending him the scale of pay of Rs.8400- 16525 (corresponding pay scale in Revised Pay Scales, 2005 of Rs.12,385-27750) on par with his juniors, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and consequently, direct the respondent-Society to extend him, the scale of pay of Rs.8400-16525 (corresponding pay scale in Revised Pay Scales, 2005 of Rs.12,385-27750), with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has joined in the respondent-Society, as a Post-graduate Teacher, on 20th of September 1986. He was promoted as a Principal on 18th of May 1995, and since then, he has been working as a Principal in the A.P.Social Welfare Residential School/Junior College, Nizampatnam in Guntur District. The respondent-Society herein is being run with 100% Grant-in-Aid from the State Government, and it runs various categories of institutions. There are some institutions, where, the respondent- Society run schools attached with junior colleges, and some other institutions, which are independent junior colleges. Some institutions, which were being run only for the purpose of schooling, were upgraded by attaching junior college sections. There are also non-upgraded institutions, which are being run by the respondent- Society, imparting education only up to 10th Class. About 116 institutions are upgraded, wherein, junior college sections are added to the school sections. In the upgraded institutions, the eligible Post-graduate Teachers have been promoted to the cadre of Principal. There was variation in the scales applicable to the upgraded institutions and the independent junior colleges, and the Principals holding posts in the junior colleges, were drawing higher scales than that of the Principals like the petitioner, who are working in the upgraded institution. In view of the workload and responsibilities attached to the post of Principals in the upgraded institutions, the Secretary of the respondent-Society has addressed a letter in Rc.No.G2/30799/2001, dated 18th January 2002, and further reiterated by letter, dated 21st of January 2008, requesting the Government for upgradation of the post of Principal in the upgraded institutions to that of the post of Principal in the independent junior colleges run by the respondent-Society. The Government, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.149, dated 7th June 2008, has accepted the said proposal and ordered for upgradation of 171 posts of Principals in A.P.Social Welfare Residential Schools/Junior Colleges, to that of the post of Principal in the independent Junior Colleges of the respondent- Society, and ordered to extend the scale of pay of Rs.8400-16525 (Revised Pay Scales, 1999) to the Principals of the upgraded institutions of the Society. In the writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though the Government has extended the scale of pay of the Principals of independent junior colleges run by the respondent-Society, to the Principals, like the petitioner, who are working in the upgraded institutions, but the same benefit is not being extended by the respondent-Society, to the petitioner. It is stated that the juniors to the petitioner in the category of Principal in the upgraded institutions, are being already extended the upgraded scale, but without any valid reason, the said benefit is not being extended to the petitioner. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent-Society. In the counter affidavit, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the Government has ordered for upgradation of 171 posts of Principals in APSWR Schools/Junior Colleges to that of the post of Principal in the APREI Society, and extended the scale of pay of Rs.8400-16525 (Revised Pay Scales, 1999) in the upgraded institutions of the Society. It is stated that for his poor performance in the results of the institution, the petitioner was awarded with the punishment of censure as per orders of Government in G.O.Ms.No.342, dated 4th of August 1997, as such, he was not considered for promotion to the post of Grade-I Principal. It is submitted that as the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Grade-I Principal, he is not entitled to the higher scale, as claimed by him. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is not in dispute that in this case, the petitioner is working as a Principal in the upgraded institution, wherein, the school is being run along with the junior college Sections. From a perusal of the orders of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.149, dated 07.06.2008, it is clear that the Government has accepted the proposal for upgradation of the post of Principal in the upgraded institutions to that of the post of Principal in the independent junior colleges. In that view of the matter, the contention of the respondent- Society that the petitioner is not entitled for higher scale of pay as he suffered punishment in the disciplinary proceedings, cannot be accepted. The entitlement of petitioner to the scale of pay of Rs.8400-16525 as per the revised pay scales of 1999, corresponding to the scale of pay of Rs.12385-27750 as per the revised pay scales of 2005, is by virtue of upgradation of the post. When the Government has ordered for upgradation of the posts of the Principals of 171 upgraded institutions, by virtue of the implementation of the said orders by the Society, all the Principals working in the said institutions, are eligible for the upgraded scale of pay. Merely on the ground that some of the Principals working in the upgraded institutions were imposed with the punishments in disciplinary proceedings, they cannot be denied the benefit of upgraded scale, which was extended to some of the similarly placed Principals working in the upgraded institutions. Imposing the punishment as a measure of penalty in disciplinary proceedings may come in the way while effecting the promotions, but the upgraded scale of pay cannot denied to the petitioner when the post itself is upgraded. Strictly speaking, it is not a case of promotion, but is a case of upgradation of the post, which the petitioner was holding by equating to the post of Principals working in the independent junior colleges. In that view of the matter, the action of the respondent-Society in denying the scale attached to the upgraded post to the petitioners in both the writ petitions, is illegal, having extended the same to some of the Principals working in the upgraded institutions. For the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed, with a direction to the respondent-Society to extend the benefit of upgradation to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.149, dated 07.06.2008, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st April 2010 kvni/js/ajr