Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/632745
SubjectService
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-21-2009
Judge Ranjit Singh, J.
Reported in(2009)156PLR323
AppellantRam Kumar
RespondentState of Haryana and anr.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- ranjit singh, j.1. the petitioner was appointed as a math master on 30.12.1982 against the post meant for reserved category of scheduled caste. he was promoted as headmaster on 10.1.1991. subsequently, this promotion order was modified and the petitioner was so promoted with effect from 24.4.1989. on 5.10.2001 the petitioner was promoted as block education officer. by then, he had three years experience as headmaster. on 8.1.2002, the petitioner was posted to pundri.2. the post of block education officer was up-graded to that of principal of senior secondary school in the pay scale of rs. 8000-275-10200-eb-275-13500 through a notification issued on 15.9.2005, annexure p-5. since the petitioner was a headmaster and has not been promoted as a principal, an order adjusting him as headmaster was passed on 24.11.2005. pleading that this would amount to his reversion, the petitioner filed civil writ petition no. 19220 of 2005 before this court. while issuing notice of motion, the operation of the order was stayed by this court. this writ petition has since been admitted and the interim direction continued.3. while this writ petition is pending, the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of principal. he has been ordered to be promoted as principal on 18.8.2006. the pay scale of principal is rs. 8000-13500, but the petitioner is not being paid this scale on the ground that he is working as block education officer. the earlier scale of pay of block education officer was rs. 7500-12000. the petitioner has, thus, filed this writ petition to urge that pay scale of block education officer has been upgraded to the post of the principal and hence would now fetch a pay scale of rs. 8000-13500. the petitioner still has been denied this pay scale and that is how he has filed the present writ petition. .4. in the reply filed, the fact of petitioner's promotion to the post of block education officer is conceded. it is also not disputed that the post of block education officer was up-graded to the post of principal, senior secondary school in the pay scale of rs. 8000-13500. rather this is advanced as a reason to order reversion/adjustment of the petitioner on the post of headmaster as the petitioner, according to the respondents, could not have continued to hold the post after it was up-graded and equated with the post of principal. this is an order which the petitioner challenged and his adjustment/revision was stayed. it is also conceded that the petitioner has been considered and promoted to the post of principal in the pay scale of rs. 8000-13500 on 18.8.2006 (annexure p-9). the plea to deny the scale is that petitioner has not joined on the post of principal and until he does so, the scale of post of principal, i.e., rs. 8000-13500 cannot be allowed to him. the pay of the petitioner in the scale of rs. 7500-12000 is, thus, justified.5. i have heard the counsel for the parties.6. in view of the admitted facts as noticed above, the stand of the respondents is totally unfair and unjust and, thus, cannot be sustained. the petitioner was posted as block education officer when the post was equivalent to that of a headmaster. the post of block education officer was up-graded and equated with the post of principal. since the petitioner was yet to be promoted to the post of principal, an action was taken to adjust him to another post of headmaster, the post of block development officer being tenable by principals. this led to the order of adjustment or reversion of the petitioner. because of the stay granted by this court, the petitioner has continued to hold the post of block education officer. the pay scale of block education officer has now been upgraded and equated with that of a principal. thus, the block education officer has now been fixed in the pay scale 6f rs. 8000-13500. this perhaps was a reason for adjustment/ reversion of the petitioner, which was stayed by this court. subsequently, however, the petitioner has been considered and promoted to the post of principal. this fact is also conceded in the reply. the petitioner, thus, is fully eligible to hold the post of block education officer, which has since been equated with that of the principal. the pay scale of principal is rs. 8000-13500 which is the same for the block education officer. what justification, thus, would be there to deny this scale to the petitioner once he has been promoted as principal. this carries the scale which the petitioner is asking and would be entitled to. even the petitioner is working on a post (block development officer) which also carries the same pay scale. the stand of the respondents that he has to be posted as principal to get the pay scale asked by him is totally unjust, inequitable and one which not only deserves to be rejected but needs to be condemned. the respondents have failed to realise or are intentionally ignoring the fact that the petitioner is working on a post which carries a scale of principal. where would be a need for him to be posted as principal to earn this pay scale?.7. teaching is a noble profession. teachers perform majorly in building a society. they should be allowed to perform their duties free from such like worries about their careers. respondents are not being fair to the petitioner. rather, the respondents are seen to be acting with vengeance. such like impression, which appears to be vindictive, needs to be avoided.8. the writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is so ordered. the petitioner is held entitled to receive pay in the scale of rs. 8000-13500 from the date he is considered fit and approved for promotion to the post of principal. the counsel claims that the petitioner is entitled to this scale from the date the post was upgraded as he was holding the same. the aspect whether the petitioner would be entitled to this pay scale from the date when he was promoted as principal or from the date when the post was upgraded is left open and may be considered by the respondents. the scale of rs. 8000-13500 is clearly due to the petitioner from the date he has been promoted as principal and same shall be released to him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. the petitioner is held entitled to the cost of this petition, which is assessed as rs. 10,000/-.
Judgment:

Ranjit Singh, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as a Math Master on 30.12.1982 against the post meant for reserved category of Scheduled Caste. He was promoted as Headmaster on 10.1.1991. Subsequently, this promotion order was modified and the petitioner was so promoted with effect from 24.4.1989. On 5.10.2001 the petitioner was promoted as Block Education Officer. By then, he had three years experience as Headmaster. On 8.1.2002, the petitioner was posted to Pundri.

2. The post of Block Education Officer was up-graded to that of Principal of Senior Secondary School in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-10200-EB-275-13500 through a notification issued on 15.9.2005, Annexure P-5. Since the petitioner was a Headmaster and has not been promoted as a Principal, an order adjusting him as Headmaster was passed on 24.11.2005. Pleading that this would amount to his reversion, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 19220 of 2005 before this Court. While issuing notice of motion, the operation of the order was stayed by this Court. This writ petition has since been admitted and the interim direction continued.

3. While this writ petition is pending, the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Principal. He has been ordered to be promoted as Principal on 18.8.2006. The pay scale of Principal is Rs. 8000-13500, but the petitioner is not being paid this scale on the ground that he is working as Block Education Officer. The earlier scale of pay of Block Education Officer was Rs. 7500-12000. The petitioner has, thus, filed this writ petition to urge that pay scale of Block Education Officer has been upgraded to the post of the Principal and hence would now fetch a pay scale Of Rs. 8000-13500. The petitioner still has been denied this pay scale and that is how he has filed the present writ petition. .

4. In the reply filed, the fact of petitioner's promotion to the post of Block Education Officer is conceded. It is also not disputed that the post of Block Education Officer was up-graded to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500. Rather this is advanced as a reason to order reversion/adjustment of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster as the petitioner, according to the respondents, could not have continued to hold the post after it was up-graded and equated with the post of Principal. This is an order which the petitioner challenged and his adjustment/revision was stayed. It is also conceded that the petitioner has been considered and promoted to the post of Principal in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 on 18.8.2006 (Annexure P-9). The plea to deny the scale is that petitioner has not joined on the post of Principal and until he does so, the scale of post of Principal, i.e., Rs. 8000-13500 cannot be allowed to him. The pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 7500-12000 is, thus, justified.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

6. In view of the admitted facts as noticed above, the stand of the respondents is totally unfair and unjust and, thus, cannot be sustained. The petitioner was posted as Block Education Officer when the post was equivalent to that of a Headmaster. The post of Block Education Officer was up-graded and equated with the post of Principal. Since the petitioner was yet to be promoted to the post of Principal, an action was taken to adjust him to another post of Headmaster, the post of Block Development Officer being tenable by Principals. This led to the order of adjustment or reversion of the petitioner. Because of the stay granted by this Court, the petitioner has continued to hold the post of Block Education Officer. The pay scale of Block Education Officer has now been upgraded and equated with that of a Principal. Thus, the Block Education Officer has now been fixed in the pay scale 6f Rs. 8000-13500. This perhaps was a reason for adjustment/ reversion of the petitioner, which was stayed by this Court. Subsequently, however, the petitioner has been considered and promoted to the post of Principal. This fact is also conceded in the reply. The petitioner, thus, is fully eligible to hold the post of Block Education Officer, which has since been equated with that of the Principal. The pay scale of Principal is Rs. 8000-13500 which is the same for the Block Education Officer. What justification, thus, would be there to deny this scale to the petitioner once he has been promoted as Principal. This carries the scale which the petitioner is asking and would be entitled to. Even the petitioner is working on a post (Block Development Officer) which also carries the same pay scale. The stand of the respondents that he has to be posted as Principal to get the pay scale asked by him is totally unjust, inequitable and one which not only deserves to be rejected but needs to be condemned. The respondents have failed to realise or are intentionally ignoring the fact that the petitioner is working on a post which carries a scale of Principal. Where would be a need for him to be posted as Principal to earn this pay scale?.

7. Teaching is a noble profession. Teachers perform majorly in building a society. They should be allowed to perform their duties free from such like worries about their careers. Respondents are not being fair to the petitioner. Rather, the respondents are seen to be acting with vengeance. Such like impression, which appears to be vindictive, needs to be avoided.

8. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is so ordered. The petitioner is held entitled to receive pay in the scale of Rs. 8000-13500 from the date he is considered fit and approved for promotion to the post of Principal. The counsel claims that the petitioner is entitled to this scale from the date the post was upgraded as he was holding the same. The aspect whether the petitioner would be entitled to this pay scale from the date when he was promoted as Principal or from the date when the post was upgraded is left open and may be considered by the respondents. The scale of Rs. 8000-13500 is clearly due to the petitioner from the date he has been promoted as Principal and same shall be released to him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioner is held entitled to the cost of this petition, which is assessed as Rs. 10,000/-.