- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Heard Sri N. K. Pandey holding brief of Sri A. Kumar counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sheo Pujan Singh, Standing Counsel for State Authorities.
(2.) THE petition on hand has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in C. T. Grade with effect from 19-2-19s6 and in L. T. Grade with effect from 19-2-1991. THE basis of the claim is the Government Order, dated 19-10-1989 as amended by G. O. dated 2-12-1990. Petitioner, it is not disputed, was appointed as a permanent Assis tant Teacher in B. T. C. Grade on 19- 2-1989. He completed 5 years of sub stantive service in B. T. C. Grade on 19-2-1986. Since he was possessed of B. A. B. Ed. degrees, he became entitled to C. T. Grade on completion of 5 years of substantive service in terms of Regulation 7 (2) of Chapter II of the Regulations made under U, P. Intermediate Education Act which reads as under ;- The fact that the aforesaid provision was deleted by means of Noti fication No. 4168/15-7-10 (160)- 1991 T. C.-Lucknow, dated 19-8-1992 would not affect the right already acquired by petitioner. The Government Order dated 19-8-1992 omitting Regulation 7 (2) cannot be given retrospective effect so as to affect right already acquired by the petitioner under the said provision as it stood before its omission w. e. f, 19-8-1992. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was not entitled to C. T. Grade merely because of the omission of Regulation 7 (2), in view of the notification, dated 19-8-1992, cannot, therefore, be countenanced.
(3.) THE next question that arises for consideration by the Court is : whether the petitioner is entitled to be given L. T. Grade in terms of para graph 12 of the G. O. dated 19-10-1989 which reads as below : The aforesaid provision was amended by means of a subsequent G. O. dated 30-11-1989/2-12-1989 and the amended paragraph 12 reads as below :;