Petitioners HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH B (Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J) Respondents W.P. No. 2855 of 1999 Aupchariketar Shiksha Anudeshak/ Paryavekshak Sangh (A Society registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973) Lormi, District Biiaspur, Through its President Shri Gyanik Das. Pt. Gyanik Das, aged about 33 years S/o Pt. Mewa Das, R/o Gram Dadhipara, P.O. Daukapa Tahsii Lormi, District Bilaspur Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary, Department of School Education Government of. Madhya Pradesh, Vallabh Bhawan Deleted by Court order dated 5.8.2002 & substituted as: State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Deptt. of School Education Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Commissioner of Public Instructions Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal dated Deleted by Court order 5.8.2002 & substituted as: Commissioner of Public Instruction, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Dy. Director of Education District Bilaspur (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Appearance: Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate of the petitioners. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1,2.& 3. 1. ~ g ~§ y x m; 2 W.P. No. 2855 of 1999 {aw (/6.07.2010) Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Petitioner No.1 is an Association of the instructors and Supervisors working in Non Formal Education Programme in the erstwhiie State of Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner No.2 is one of the members of the Association. According to the pleadings in the writ petition, 41 members of the petitioners’ Association were working as instructors under Non Formal Education Programme of State of Madhya Pradesh in different Centres in Biiaspur Block/District in the‘year 1999. The list of 41 members has been filed as Annexure-P/Z. in June 1999 they filed the writ petition for the following reiief(s): “7. Reliefs sough t 1. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in the service of the respondents from their initial appointment. 2. The Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to put the petitioners on regular pay scales to that of Junior School Teachers in the Education Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh plus other consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment. 3. The Hon’bie Court may be further pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the difference in arrears of salary accrue to them from the date of their initial appointment. 4. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and ‘sa circumstances of the case". \ W.P. No. 2855 of 1999 (2) The claims of the petitioners were mainly based on pleadings related to parity. They pleaded that their pay s‘cales shouid be equai to the junior school teachers in the Education Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh as persons of both the category discharge almost similar function. (3) A detailed return was filed by the then respondents (State of Madhya Pradesh and other associated respondents) on 10.12.99. The respondents pleaded that the nature of assignment of persons of both the categories are quite different; the nature of appointments on certain conditions of memberslgtitloner’s association are also different. therefore, they cannot maintain their claim on account of parity for the said relief(s). The petitioner’s pleaded vide Para-5.7 of the petition that the instructors were appointed by the Deputy Director of the Education on the basis of selection held by a Selection Committee and copy of one of such appointment order dated 28.10.92 was filed as Annexure-P/4. This was very specifically denied by the respondents pleading that the above contents of Para-5.7. are incorrect. They reiterated that the instructors were granted permission to run the Non Formal Education Centres on the recommendation of the concerned Gram Panchayat and no selection was held to appoint them as has been contended by the petitioners. Anexure- P/4 cannot'be termed as an appointment letter. The respondents very specifically pleaded that the nature of assignment, the nature of job and responsibilities of two posts are completely different and there is no similarity at all, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim parity with the regularly appointed school teacher. 4 WP. No. 2855 of. 1999 \/\ (4) Before hearing of this matter in the High Court of Madhya Pradaiih, re-organization took place in the erstwhiie State of Madhya Pradesh nml Successor State of Chhattigarh was formed. After formation of the now State, this matter was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 9.4.2002, in the changed scenarior‘this Court directed the officer—incharge, who wrm present on the said date, to file an affidavit within 5 days and the matter: was fixed on 17.4.2002. On 15.4.2002, Mr. Y.K. Shukia, in—charge Distinct Education Officer. Biiaspur, filed his affidavit, the contents‘of which are tam foliows: “1. Ihave collected information from the different centers As per the information received in District of Bilaspur. from 1.4.2000 all the Centres running under the Non formal education scheme of Govt. of MP. has been closed under a Policy decision taken by the State Govt. The petitioners were not in the service from 1.4.2000. The list as enclosed by the petitioners from No. 1 to 41 as enclosed in their annexures P2 are not in service from 1.4.2000 as the' Non formal education Centres have been closed since then. The said affidavit disclosed that on a policy decision of the Government the Non Formal Education Centres running under the Non Formal Education Scheme of the Government of Madhya Pradesh have been closed from 1.4.2000 and none of the instructors, 1 to 41 mentioned in Annexure—P/2, were in services from 1.4.2000. (5) After filing this affidavit on record, no amendments were brought in the writ petition. However, LA. No. 2695/2002 was filed by the petitionoiii on 2.5.2002 praying that the respondents be direct to pay petitioner“ .\V 5 W.P. No. 2855 of 1999 differences of wages comparing junior primary school teachers and the instant petition be disposed of directing the respondents to consider to appoint the petitioners in 43 schools of Lormi area where single teachers schoois are iying vacant or aiternativeiy give them priority in appointment in Education Guarantee Schools of Lormi area. (6) We note that after transfer of the case to the State of Chhattisgarh, the original respondents 1.& 2 i.e. State of Madhya Pradesh and Commissioner of Public Instruction, Madhya Pradesh, were substituted by the State of Chhattisgarh and Commissioner of Public Instruction, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. lt is at this stage the matter was heard finally. (7) It is clear from the affidavit of the Ofncer-lncharge that the petitioners were not in services from 1.4.2000 as this was never controverted by the petitioners by filing rejoinder affidavit, rather they admitted it in l.A. No. 2695/2002. Even relief(s) claimed in the writ petition were not amended to the effect prayed in i.A. No. 2695/2002. (8) The question is whether the relief(s) claimed in the writ petition can be granted to the petitioners at this stage when they are not in services from 1.4.2000. The first relief is that the State authorities be directed to continue members of the petitioners in services of the State from their initial date of appointment. When the members of the petitioner‘s are not in services from 1.4.2000 and as per policy decision taken by the Government, the Centres running under the Non Formal Education Scheme of Madhya Pradesh have been closed, such a relief of continuation, looking to the nature of appointment, now cannot be granted 'as the cause of action for granting such relief does not survive after 6 W.P. No. 2855 of 1999 1.4.2000 i.e. after closing of the Centres of Non Formal Education Scheme and after discontinuation/removal of the instructors from their posts. The second & third reliefs are consequential reliefs and in absence of non—survivai of cause of action for the main relief and in the changed scenario after 1.4.2000, i do not deem it appropriate to consider the cases of the petitioners for grantoi-th'ese reliefs as these reliefs also cannot be granted at this stage. The petitioners even after their non- continuance from 1.4.2000 did not chailenge that action of the Government and continued with the present petition in its present form only on account of parity,which, in fact, was a relief which could have been considered in case of their continuation in services which was discontinued on the said date. These relief(s) 2 & 3 cannot be granted against the present respondents i.e. State of Chhattisgarh or the authorities of State of Chhattisgarh further for the reason as the existence of the present respondents came only after the re-organization on 1.11.2000, whereas, the services of the petitioners were discontinued from 1.4.2000 i.e. before the re-organization, therefore, the claimed reliefs cannot be attributed to the State of Chhattisgarh. (9) For the foregoing reasons, i do not find any substance in this petition, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. v (10) No orders as to cost. Sd/- vatti Sunil Kumar Sinha it, Judge