- (1.)The writ petitioners were appointed as Vidya Upasaks, in the year 2000, and, they continued to serve in the afore capacity, under the respondents, upto the year 2007, whereat, they became regularized. It is apt to state here that, during, the period of the petitioners, hence serving as vidya Upasak(s), they were never on any fixed pay scales, nor obviously any accrual of increments thereon, were permissible, rather they were paid a fixed per mensem honorarium, of, Rs. 2500/-. However, certain Vidya Upasaks hence holding a status alike the writ petitioners, instituted CWPs No. 8953 of 2013 along with CWP No. 3106 of 2014, and, CWP No. 2815 of 2015, and, all the afore writ petition(s) were decided, through a common verdict, made on 15.6.2015, and, in the operative part of the afore verdict, a direction was rendered, upon, the respondents, to count the period of service rendered by them, as, Vidya Upasaks, as qualifying service, only, for the purpose of pension. A further direction was also made, upon, the respondents, to count the period of rendition of service, by the petitioners, as Vidya Upasaks, for the purpose, of, adding(s), of, annual increments.
(2.)The respondent State, has instituted a reply, to, the writ petition, and, in paragraph No.8 thereof, has made a categorical disclosure, vis-a-vis, the afore operative part, of, the verdict, rendered by this Court, on 15.6.2015, being completely complied with.
(3.)Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the import, of, the afore sentence occurring, in the operative part of the afore verdict, inasmuch as, the apposite period being also countable for the purpose of increments, being readable and construable, qua the apposite period of rendition of service, by the petitioners, as Vidya Upasaks, whereat, they were getting, a, fixed per mensem honorarium, of, Rs. 2500/-, also, requiring the respondent concerned, to add increment(s) thereon, rather on, a, running pay scale. However, the afore argument is per-se fallacious, and, is made, on, a gross misreading, of, the afore verdict, recorded by this Court, as the import thereof, is, vis-a-vis, the requisite period of rendition of service, as Vidya Upasak, by the petitioners, being not countable for according, of, annual increments, in, the running pay scale, especially when as aforementioned, they, were being defrayed, a, per mensem honorarium, of, Rs. 2500/-. Furthermore, a further argument(s), is, made by the learned counsel, for the petitioners, for levying of increments, within the ambit of the afore sentence, occurring the operative part of the afore verdict, besides apposite levying being postponed to a stage, whereat, the writ petitioners, became regularized, and, hence became entitled to a running pay scale. However, the afore argument is unworthy of merit, as a clear reading, of, the afore sentence occurring, in the operative part of the verdict of this Court, makes a direction, only for levying of annual increment, vis-a-vis, the period of rendition of service by the petitioners, as Vidya Upasak, and, not subsequent thereto, upon, theirs' entering into a running pay scale, qua whereto rather the apposite levying would become governed, by, all relevant thereto rules, and, regulations.
;