'^ IN TH^^Sl COURT <^!uMCATUftYAT BILASPl^ CHMATTIS6ARH WRTT PET3TION NO.^&o §OF2003 ^°" ^, PETmONER: ^* ,6«<A ^' ^>r..>t: ?^es°A..--" Smt. Kavita Tiwari, W/o 5hri Y.C. Tiwari, Aged about G>i years, ..• R/o Juna, Bilaspur, s'^^0^""' Working as Upper Oivision SS^' Teacher. Lal Bahadur Shastri Municipal Higher Secondcry School, ShanichdB-i, Bitaspur (C.6.) y RESPONbENTS: - Versus - ..A^L ^^ sir?^, ^•' f'':^»^3^'^ p^ i.L l.lj^Y^. D %^:^^.-f/ rt 1. State of Chhatti^nrh, Throuah: The Secretory, beparhnent of Urbon Oevelopment ond Administrotion, Mantralaya, &.K.S. Buildin9, Raipur (C.6.) Municipal Corporation, Bila^ur, Throuqh:Its Cominissroner, Municipal Corporation Buitdin9, Ndiru Chowk, Bilaq»ur(C.6.) ^•v ' C'';3,"^ • ^^- WRITPETmON UNOER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONgg: As mentioned in -the cause title above. AFf - ^3-c( HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4003 of 2003 Petitioner Smt, KavitaTiwari Versus ts State ofChhattisgarh and aiiother Bsacb : Hon'ble Mr, Justice Satlsh K. Agaihotri. Shri Maniadra Shrivastava, Seiuor Advocate wifh Shri B. D. Guru, Advocate for the petitioner. Snit. Aajii Ahiija, Deputy Govt. Advocate for flie respondent No. 1. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Advocate for fhe i^spondent No.2, ORAL ORDER ( 29th March, 2006) The foUowing order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. The present petition, filed iinder Article 226/227 offhe Constitation of India, seelcs a m-it of insjidajnus/any ofher writ for grant of pay scale of thc post of Lectiu-er froin the date fhe petitioner was promoted on tlie post of Lectiu-er, It was furfher prayed that fhe difference of saiaiy paid to the petitioner aad salar5r ofthepost ofLecturerbe also pajd with interest to the petitioner. The relevaj.it facts in nutsheU ai'e that initiaBy the petitiouer was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher and subsequenfly iride orier dated 9.2.1983, she was coirfirmed on the post of Upper Divisipnal Teacher. The petitioner along with otheis was pi-onioted to the post of Lecturer vide orier dated 16.7. l997(Annexure P/2) on the pay scale of Rs. 1640-60-2600-75-2900. According to fhe petitioner the petitioner havuig been piDDioted, assunied the responsibflity of the post of Lecturer at Lalbahadur Shastri Higher Secondaiy School, Bilassur. v'is Bl! ••;-; EaBBff 4. 6. However, .the petitioner was paid only salaiy of the Upper Division Teacher. The Commissioner, Miuiicipal Corporation, BUaspur passed an order dated 28.8.1997 (Aruiexure R-2/2) to the effect that thc officers who were promoted in the inoufh of July would get fhe salaiy of fhe old post tfll fhe piumotioa is approved by tlie Govemment. It was furfher stated in the order that the petitioner would get arrcars of ttie salary offhe promoted post on approval ofthe proinotion, The petitiouer was accoriingly deprived of ttie pay scale of LectLirer which oiight to have been paid to her froni the tiine of piomotion on tbe post of Lecturer w.e.f. 16.7.1997. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 198/2003 in this Court. This Coiirt by order dated 22.8.2003 dh~cted the respoudent- Competent Authority to consider ajid decide the reprcsentation of the petitioner for gi-aiit of pay scale of Lccturer wifhin a period of two months froni tlie date of tbe leceipt of the representation. The respondent No.2 considere'd the representation and vide order dated 1.11.2003 (Annexure P,/1) rcjected the representation oftlie petitioner on the groiind that the petitioner cannot be paid salaiy of the post of Lecturer as iiles relating to proinotion were called for by the Commissioiier, Bilaspiir Division. and CoUector, BUaspur. It was stated that no direction was issued by tlie then district adininistratioii and as such the petitioner could not be paid the sateuy of tfae post of l^ctwer, Seing aggrieved, fhe petitioner has ffled fhis petition seeking a writ/direction against the respondents to grant pay scgle ofthe post of Lecturer and arreare ofsaJary also be paid w.e.f. 16.7. 1997. During the pendency of fhis petitiou., the petitioner retired on 30fh April, 2005. ^ . ^ 7. Leamed coiuisel appcariug for the petitioner submits that Scction 58 (1) of the M. P. Miinicipal Corporation Act, 1956 (which wfll be refeired faeremafter as 'the Act, 1956') provides fhat the Municipal Corporation was not required to obtaia prior approval of fhe State Goverament in case of appointineat of the Lccturer, as proviso to Section 58 (1) provides fhat "the power of appointmg any person on a miiaicipal post which carries a maximum scale of pay as the State Govemment may, from time to time, by an order in writing specify, shaU vest ia fhe Mayor-in-Council or fhe Coinmissioner." Thus the appointinent of Lecturer coines within the power of the Cominissioner, In fhe present case the State by its letter dated 26.10.1988 (Annexure P/1 1} clearly prescribed fhat luider fhe proviso to Section 58 (1) of fhe Act, 1956 in case of aa appomtment/proniotion which caries the maximuia pay scale of Rs. 1540-2750, with subseqiient revisions of pay, time to time, the Commissioner alone would toe competent for appomtment/ Leanied counsel furflier submits that m view of fhe tegal provisions and submissions stated above, the Coinniissioner, Miznicipal Corporation was not ob5iged to seek any appioval or sanction ofthe State Goverament and the petitioner was cntitled to fuU scale ofpay of the post of Lecturer. It is Jurther contended fhat the promotion to fhe post of Lecturer vide order dated 16.7.1997 has not been disputed by any autfiority of the State Govemment. Sint. Anju Ahuja, lea-med coiinsel appearing for fhe State points out that fhe respondent State has fUed its retum wherein it is clearly stated as under:- but m fhe posts like Upper Division Teacher, Lecturer etc. and the posts for which fhe petitioner is workmg and ttie post to which , y E!'f""lis in shc is seeldng promotion, no prior approval is needed from fhe State Govemment aiid the Respondent No.2 can itself be pei-mitted to the petitionei^. Leanied counsel subinits that the petitioner was entitled to fhe pay scale of the post of Lecturer and she coiild not have been denied ou fhe giound fhat ttie ffles weic lying wifh the Coinmissioner, Bilaspur Division or CoUector, Bilaspur or any other officer. The approval/sanction was not required to be granted by the State under section 58(1) of the Act, 1956 which clearly provided that in case ofappoiatnient/proiaotion on a postwhich carries the maxitnuia pay scale of Rs. 1540-2750, with subsequent revision of pay, time to tifTtc, the Coirunissioner is coinpeteat to appoint or promote a person. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No,2 subtnits fliat it is true that the petitioner was appointed on fhe post of Lecturer and it is not disputed, however fhe Coinmissioner/respondent No.3 could not make fhe payinent ofsalary ofthe post ofLecturer in view offhe facts fhat the fUes were lying wifh the Coianiissioner, Bilaspur Division aad CoIIector, Bilaspur. It is further coutended that fhe Coianiissioner/respondent No.3 had inade it clear fhat the petitioner would be entitled to salaiy of the promoted post of Lectiirer, but fhe same could not be made because no specific instructions were received from t&e State Govemment. It was clearly stated in fhe oider dated 28.8.1997 (Annexure R/2-2) that fhe petitioner would be paid dtfference of salaiy on having received fhe oriei- of approval froin the State Goveminent. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties and having perused fhe records appended to the petition and to flie retiinis filed by the respondents, it is indisputably established that the petitioner was promoted in accoidance wifh law to fhe post of Lecturer ou a pay .S-^-WS^Si^^^^^^ K-y'':-':'^\ '^'"s?^^^^^^^^ •^ ••^^^^^J-''^ 13. 14. scalc of Rs. 1640-60-2600-75-2900. The petitioner continued to receive fhe salaiy of fhe Upper Division Teacher even after promotion to the postof Lecturer. The Respondent No.3 has wrongly declined the salary of fhe post of Lecturer to fhe petitioner on the ground that the promotion to the post of Lecturer was pending approval before the State Govemment. The orderdated 1.11.2003 (Annexure P/1) passed by fhe Conunissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, on fhe representation offhe petitioner was without any basis, as pendency of the document relating to fhe proiuotion of fhe petitioner to fhe post of Lecturer in the office of the Coiainissioner, Bilaspur Division and CoUector, BUaspiir does not prevent the Commissioner, Miuiicipal Corporation froin inaking payinent of salary of fhe post of Lecturer to fhe petitioner as she was duly promoted to fhe post of Lecturer OE 16.7.1997. The legal provision is veiy clear, proviso to Sectioa 58(1) of the Act, 1956 does not piescribe for obtauiing prior or ofherwise approval of the State Goveniment wherein, in fhe case of appointment or promotion to the post which can-ies inaximuin salary of fhe pay scale i.e. Rs, 1540-2750, as is evident 6-om the order dated 26.10.1988, which clearly provides fhat the appointment or proniotion to the post which cames maximuiu salary of fhe pay scale Rs. 1540-2750 wifh subsequent rcvised pay scale in future, the approval/sanction ofthe State Goveranient was not required aud the Coinnussioner alone was eoinpetent for appouitiaent/proinotion on fhe post. As per fhe order dated 13.3.1990 (Annexiu-e P/9) it is evident fhat earlier the pay scale ofthe post of Lecturer was Rs. 1540-40-1620-50- 2320-60-2740 which was later on. revised ttiat is why the appoiatment oider of the petitioner shows fhe pay scale of the post of Lecturer as -Rs. 1640-60-2600-75-2900/-. It is, fherefore, elearly established that -I'1 ';i^7:t^^^Ia under the proviso to Section 58(1) ofthe Act 1956 read wifh fbe letter dated 26.10.1988, fhe appoiiitnient/proinotion to the post ofLccturer was withiu the jurisdiction of the Conunissioner, Municipal Corporation and no saaction/approval of the State Goverrunent was required. The Corporation has never obtained sanctioa/approval of the State Govenuaent earUer whfle proinoting Upper Division Teachers to the post of Lectureis as is evident froin the order dated 13.3.1990(Aimexiu-e P/9). Iri. The State Govenunent has also inade it clear in its reply fhat no sanction/approval of the State Govemment is required for appointment/proiaotion on the post ofLecturer. 16. For the reasons stated above, fhe petition siicceeds and is aUowed, The respondent No.3 is dirccted to pay the difference of salary of fhe pay, fhe petitioner was receiving froin 16.7,1997 and fhe pay of Lecturer, revised from. time to tune, tiU her date of retirenient i.e. 30fh April, 2005, with inteicst at the rate of6% per annuia. Certified copy, as per Rules. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge