HiGH COURT OF CHHATT AJ_BLLASPLTR WMT PETmON (Sy No. 580 of2005 'r TP l-;i^-. PJ surveshwar Dayal Mishra agsd 34 years s/o Late Shti B.D.Mislira, Officiatmg Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondar^' School Samani, Tah & District Rajnandgaon. VERSUS ?ENTS ; 1. State of Madhva Pradesh fhroueh Secretan'', Deptt. of High School Education, Vallabh Shawan, Bhopa!. 2. Priucipal,. Govt. Higlier Secondarv' Sciiool, Somani, Tah. & Distt, Rajaandgaon. MPUCATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATI\rE TRJBL7NAL ACT, 1985 T?^-.u?t^i ilK.. Present; Shri Somkant Venna, Advocate for the petitioner. Sfari M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Goveninieut Advocate for fhc State/respondcuts. (Passed on 06ttl day of August, 2009) The petitioner, by this petitioii, seeks a direction to the respondents to grantthe same salary and other service benefits from 1983 i.e. the date the Detitioner started workiag as Lecturer or altemativelv, 10 percent esura salar\' in purs'aance to the govemment policy decision. The indispirtable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed oa 07 November, I983 as Upper Division Teacher at Govemment Higher Secondaiy School, Kawardha. On appointment, the petitioner was asked to teach higher classes also as per Annexiire R./l, wherem it was stated that in case of necessity, post graduate and B.Ed. senior teachers may be assigiied the teaching responsibility of class 1 1 and 12 also. According to leamed courisel appearing for fhe petitioner, riglit from 1983, the petitioner contiaued to take classes of higher secondar\' classes. The petitioner relies oa a circular dated 31 January, 1974 (Aimexure P/9) wmerein clause 3 , it is provided that ifduring the period ofban of fi'esh recruitment a govemment servant is directed to take up the additional responsibility in addition to his own work, he may be entitled to special pay at the rate of 10 percent ofthe miiiimiim ofthe additional pay or Rs. 20/- per tiionth, whiehever is more. It was farther stated that the provision would not.be applicable in cases where period involved is less than 1 5 davs and more than tteee months. ^'^^^'s't^fr-^•FJ3"M^':' •l^"»a,^ .,CTl<i4'^, ^??'-.. ^ %sl!'% 1 •Z9] <s»r ..^' 4. It is not the case ofthe petitioner that the petitioner was performinj his dutv by teaching middle classes in additioii to hisher classes i.e. class 11th and 12 . On quer\-, asto whether the petitioner was directed to do more work than the other Upper Division Teachers, leamed counsel submits that the duU' hours and the period the petitioner was required to take class was one and the same. However, since he was teachiiig class 11 aiid 12th students, he was entitled to additional'special pay. 5. Oa penisal ofthe above stated circular, it appears that the petitioner was eiititied to additional pay ifhe was performing duty in addition to his routine work and that too, not for more than three months or less than 15 days. Tlie petitioner has failed to prove that he was performing extra duty and as such, he was entitled to the special pay. 6. Shri Bhatia, leamed Deputy Govenmient Advocate, relying on the avennents made in retum filed by the State/respoBdents submits that the petitioner was assigiied the responsibilit\' ofteaching class 11 and 12 from 1986 to 1991 in substitution ofhis work ofteaching middle school classes. Iii such a situation, no additional work was given to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any speeial pay at the rate of 10 perceat, as stated in the circular (Annexure P i9). 7. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties, penised the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the petitioner has not discharged anv additiona! fanction bv takine periods of higher ciasses i.e. class 11 and 12th 1'nore thaii what he was required to take in lower classes. In total, the petitioner was not performing any extra dutv in lieu of teaching lower classes as he was directed to teach hi.eher classes also. This does not amount to extra work or additional work and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the circulai- dated31st January, 1974 (Armexure P/9). 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed being devoid ofmerit. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge