Om Prakash, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Despite the order dated 30th August, 1983, no counter affidavit has been filed by the learned standing counsel. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a C.T. Grade teacher in the year, 1968 and then he was promoted as L.T. Grade teacher in 1972 when he passed B.A. Examination and he was given L.T. Grade payable to an untrained L.T. Grade teacher. Later, he was sent to complete B.Ed. course by the Management and then he completed the said training in 1974 and informed the Manager to that effect on 19th July, 1974. After having completed B.Ed. courses the petitioner requested the respondents to pay him salary as admissible to a trained L.T. Grade teacher but to his surprise, having completed B.Ed. course he was paid salary which is payable to a C.T. Grade teacher only.
(2.) BY the order dated 24.5.1984, this Court directed the respondent No. 2 to dispose of the petitioner's representation which was disposed of by the order dated 12th July, 1984, Annexure 'J' to the writ petition by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was not given L.T. grade admissible to a trained teacher from July, 1974 because no resolution was passed by the management committee to that effect. No other reason has been given to refuse the salary of L.T. Grade to the petitioner. No counter affidavit having been filed by the respondents, the facts as averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was promoted to L.T. Grade in 1972; that he was paid salary as admissible to untrained L.T. Grade teacher and that he passed B.Ed. course in 1974 which fact was intimated to the management on 19th July, 1974, remained uncontroverted. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the petitioner was paid lesser salary admissible to a C.T. Grade teacher only after B.Ed. course having been completed in 1974. Even if the petitioner had not completed B.Ed. Course, he would have continued to get same salary which he was getting in 1972 after promotion. Then the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to salary as admissible to a trained L.T. Grade teacher. The fact of having completed B.Ed. in 1974 is not denied and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to salary as admissible to a trained L.T. Grade teacher even in the absence of a formal resolution having been passed by the Management. The writ petition is, therefore, finally disposed of directing the respondents to pay the petitioner's salary as admissible to a trained L.T. Grade teacher from 19th July, 1974 on which date the petitioner informed the Manager that he had completed B.Ed. course, within two months from date a certified copy of this order is served upon the respondent No. 2 personally by the petitioner, and the petitioner shall continue to get that salary so long as he continues in L.T. Grade. No order as to costs.;