HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.5707 OF 2001 Dated: 25.11.2010 Between: 1. Madhava Rao Shravan and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep.,by its Secretary Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.5707 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not disposing of the representation of the petitioners pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 23.1.1989 made in W.P.No.6893/1985 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to forthwith pass orders on the representation of the petitioners. The factual matrix as per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that all the petitioners are teachers and petitioners 1, 2 & 6 are retired from service and rest of them are in service in their respective schools. Earlier, they filed W.P.No.6893 of 1985 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to pay minimum pay of Rs.130/- in the scale of Rs.130-250 from the date of acquiring qualifications and minimum of Rs.150/- in the scale of Rs.150-300 with effect from 19.3.1969 and put them in the pay scale of Rs.320-500 with effect from 1.1.1974 or from the date of acquiring Hindi Pandit Qualifications and to grant consequential benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.1.1989. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in WP No.6893 of 1985, the petitioners made a representation. But no orders have been passed. The 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 25.2.1999 called upon the 3rd respondent to give information with regard to remarks of DEO, Nizamabad on the proposal and also reasons for submission of proposals after 10 years after passing of judgment in the year 1989. In spite of reminder by the 2nd respondent, till today the respondents have not moved an inch in the matter. Hence, the present writ petition. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 stating that the judgment relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the case and it is applicable to the untrained matriculates and untrained graduates appointed as SGT’s whereas the writ petitioners are language Pandits and entered into service with oriental qualification. As such, G.O.Ms.No.2069 dated 9.10.1967 is not applicable to the Language pandits. Petitioners 1,2 & 6 are retired from service and rest of them are in service in their respective schools and all of them filed W.P.No.6893 of 1985 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to pay minimum pay of Rs.130/- in the scale of Rs.130-250 from the date of acquiring qualifications and minimum of Rs.150/- in the scale of Rs.150- 300 with effect from 19.3.1969 and put them in the pay scale of Rs.320-500 with effect from 1.1.1974 or from the date of acquiring Hindi Pandit Qualifications and to grant consequential benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioners to make a representation to the Government with regard to disparity in their pay scales and the Government shall issue notice to the managements to furnish necessary fixation particulars for the disposal of the representation within eight weeks. In response to the orders of the 2nd respondent, dated 28.0.1994, the 3rd respondent has submitted the required information and document vide his letter No.9137/A5/87-97, dated 13.2.1998, which is received from the managements concerned. The petitioners are not eligible for pay protection in the light of G.O.Ms.No.2069, dated 9.10.1967. The petitioners are all language pandits and entered into service with oriental qualifications. G.O.Ms.No.2069 dated 9.10.1967 is not at all related to the language pandits and it is concerned to untrained matriculates and untrained graduates working in S.G.T.posts. The scales of S.G.Ts is less than the scale of language Pandits. The qualification for the post of S.G.T. and language pandits are quite different. The category of post is also different and the duty of language pandits is to teach languages only. For these posts, graduation is not necessary whereas the S.G.Ts have to teach Science and Mathematics. The holders of oriental titles will not be called as graduate or matriculates as the oriental titles are limited only to language pandits i.e., the oriental title will not have the knowledge of non-languages. Hence, there is disparity in qualifications and difference in scales. Claiming the scale of pay under G.O.Ms.No.2069 is completely misleading as the said G.O. is not applicable to Language pandits. There is separate G.O. for language pandits i.e., G.O.Ms.No.330, dated 10.8.1983. According to the said G.O., the posts of languages pandits are upgraded as per their qualifications whereas the said G.O.Ms.No.330 is not made applicable to other categories of teachers due to the reasons that the duties and pay scales of language pandits and their category teachers are quite different and in the same way, G.O.Ms.No.2069, dated 9.10.1967 cannot be made applicable to the language pandits. If it is extended the same will adversely affect the services of other categories of teachers. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. One of the writ petitioners viz., Sri Madhavao Shravan (1st petitioner herein) appeared tohave made a representation dated 5.8.1999. Thereafter, it appeared that pursuant to the letter No:9137/A5/87-87, dated 13.2.1998, the Commissioner and Director of School Education issued proceedings in Rc.No:901/D1-3/1998, dated 25.2.1989 drawing the attention of the District Educational Officer, Nizamabad calling for certain information as under: 1.The remarks of the District Educational Officer, Nizamabad on the proposal. 2.Description about the nature of the case. 3.Affidavit copy filed by the petition in W.P.No:6893 of 1985. 4.Whether the petitioners are eligible for pay fixation or not justify. 5.Reasons for submission of proposals after 10 years after issue of judgment in the year 1989. 6.what is the relativity of G.O.Ms.No:2069 Edn. Dated 9.10.1967 to the teachers referred in the proposals as the G.O speaks about untrained teachers and acquired training qualifications subsequently. 7.Furnish a copy of A/5/137/87-11, dated 9.4.1989 of D.E.O Nizamabad. 8.Statement of particulars of the incumbent said above are not furnished with reference to their appointments/qualifications at the time of appointments and qualification acquired subsequently and scale of pay at the time of appointment. 9.Whether the posts held by them are sanctioned admitted to grant in aid. If so furnish copies of G.Os. etc. 10.What is the scale of pay for Gr.I language pandits at the time of appointment of teacher in question.” The above correspondence pertains to the year 1989, which is 11 years prior to the filing of the writ petition and it is not known as to what had happened subsequently. Apart from that, neither the petitioners nor the respondents have placed before this Court the orders in G.O.Ms.No:2069, dated 9.10.1967, on which the claim of the petitioners rests and also G.O.Ms.No:330, dated 10.8.1983, which according to the respondents, is only applicable in case of Hindi pandits. The petitioners have also not shown the details as to how they suffered disparity in drawing their scales and as to how they are entitled for the pay scales as claimed in the writ petition. However, the main grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of submitting their representations, the respondents have not taken any action. In this regard, it is relevant to go through the judgment made in W.P.No:6893 of 1985, which reads as under: “The petitioners are at liberty to submit individual representation to the Government with regard to disparity in their scales of pay. On receipt of such representations, the Government shall issue notices to the respective managers of the schools for furnishing necessary particulars for the purpose of disposal of the representations. 8-Weeks time is granted to the Government to dispose of the representations. 8-Weeks time is granted to the Government to dispose of the representations on receipt of information. “ The material on record makes it clear that on the disposal of the above writ petition, the District Educational Officer, Nizamabad sent proposals in Proceedings No:9137/A5/87, dated 16.9.1993 and 9137/A5/87, dated 13.2.1996. In this regard, it is also pertinent to note that the Commissioner & Director of School Education issued proceedings in Rc.No:901/D1-3/1998, dated 25.2.1989 drawing the attention of the Education Officer, Nizamabad requiring the information as stated supra. But, it is not known as to what had happened subsequently. The judgment passed in W.P.No:6893 of 1985 has made it clear that the petitioners have to submit their applications individually. In this view of the matter and in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it just and proper to permit the petitioners to submit their representations individually within a period of four (4) Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to direct the official respondents to pass appropriate orders on the said representations, within a period of two (2) Weeks thereafter. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to the costs. ___________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Dated: 25.11.2010 Gurc. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.5707 of 2001 Dated: 25.11.2010