1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1527 OF 2002 Nagesh J Tiwari : Petitioner versus Head Master, Mahatma Gandhi Hindu Vidyalaya & ors. : Respondents. Mr. Mahendra Agwekar i/by Mandar Limaye for the Petitioner. Mr. A I Patel, AGP, for the Respondents/State. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 09th June 2010 P.C. 1 The Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on account of the fact that the Petitioner, though entitled for pay scale of the graduate teacher, which in fact he was being paid was suddenly started to be paid in the pay scale of an untrained teacher by the Respondents. 2 The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 10th June 1996. The Petitioner possesses qualification of B.A.B.Ed. and was appointed in the pay scale of 1400-2600. On the Vth Pay Commission being implemented, the pay scale applicable to him was 5500-9000. 2 However, the Petitioner’s pay scale was suddenly reduced to the pay scale of 3200-4900 which is the pay scale applicable to an untrained teacher. The Petitioner made representation to the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, but the said representation has gone unheeded. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner fits in the 25% quota of the teachers who can be paid at the higher scale of a trained teacher. This is in terms of the Government Resolution dated 14th November 1979. The facts as disclosed in the Petition show that there are six D.Ed. teachers whereas the Petitioner is alone B.Ed. teacher. 3 Reliance is also placed on behalf of the Petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2007) 9 SCC 201 in the matter of State of Maharashtra and ors. v/s. Tukaram Tryambak Choudhari wherein the fact situation was similar as in the instant case. The Apex Court in the said case held that the teachers who were possessing B.Ed. qualification were entitled to be appointed as trained teachers in the B.Ed. school, if they fit within the said 25% quota. 4 Since the authorities have taken a decision to pay the Petitioner the scale of an untrained teacher, we deem it appropriate to relegate the matter back to the Respondent No.3 to consider the case of 3 the Petitioner for being paid at the higher trained graduate scale having regard to the fact that the Petitioner can fit within 25% quota of the teachers who can be paid at the higher scale of the trained teachers. The authorities would decide the said issue in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court (Supra). 5 On such remand, the authorities to decide the Petitioner’s case within a period of six weeks of the order being produced by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.3. The Petitioner to appear before the Respondent No.3 on 5th July 2010 and the Respondent No.3 to decide the issue within six weeks thereafter. 6 The above Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent by making the Rule absolute accordingly. 7 It is clarified that pending such decision, the Petitioner would not be entitled to claim to be paid at the higher scale and the Petitioner’s entitlement would depend upon the decision of the Respondent No.3. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]