- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. From the narration of the facts given below it is clear that the controversy in all the aforesaid writ petitions centres round the question of seniority between Km. Nirmala Gupta and Smt. Vidyotma Gupta. There is also controversy about payment of selection grade and promotional grade to Km. Nirmala Gupta. All the writ petitions thus can be conveniently decided by a common judgment. The Writ Petition No. 20658 of 1994 shall be the leading case.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the aforesaid writ petition are that Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Kalpi, (here-in-after referred to as ('college') was upgraded from High School to Intermediate in the year 1969. THE Selection Committee on 3rd August, 1969 selected petitioner Km. Nirmala Gupta and Smt. Vidyotma Gupta as Lecturers. In pursuance of the selec tion, letters of appointment were issued to both of them. However peti tioner joined on 4th August, 1969 whereas respondent No. 1 Smt, Vidyotma Gupta joined on 5th August, 1969 (which is disputed ). Both these appoint ments were approved by Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools (in short 'r. I. G. S. ') by order dated 26th March, 1970. THE approval was granted to appointment of respondent No, 2 and one Km. Sudha Pathak, whg is not party in controversy here. Petitioner Km. Nirmala Gupta on 15th April, 1976 moved an application before the Committee of Management of the College, for determining her seniority correctly. THE Committee of Management by resolution No. 2 on 14th June, 1976 accepted her as senior-most lecturer whereas respondent No. 2 Smt. Shashi Prabha Shukla was mentioned at SI. No. 2 and Smt. Vidyotma Gupta was shown at SI. No. 3. This resolution was communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 15th June, 1976 which is Annexure-8 to the petition. Against this determination of the seniority by the Committee of Management, respondent No. 1 Smt. Vidyotma Gupta filed appeal before R. I. G. S. on 23rd January, 1979. R. I. G. S. by her order dated 16th March, 1979 agreed with the view taken by the Committee of Management and found that petitioner Km. Nirmala Gupta has rightly been determined as senior. It is relevant to mention here that the order of R. I. G. S. dated 16th March, 1979 was not challenged before this Court or before any other authority. Petitioner Km. Nirmala Gupta in the meantime officiated as Principal for about 8 years from 23rd June, 1977 to 21st April, 1985 as the regular Principal was under suspension, during pendency of the disciplinary proceeding against her. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8128 of 1983 for payment of the salary for the post of Principal. THE Division Bench on 1st December, 1983 gave a direction to respondents to pay her salary of the post of Principal. Respondent No. 1 during this period did not make any serious efforts to challenge the order of the Committee of Management dated 14th June, 1976 and the order of R. I. G. S. dated 16th March, 1979, though it appears that she made certain representation before the R. I. G. S. on 9th April, 197'. THEn she filed an appeal on 23rd May, 1980 in which the reply was submitted by the Committee of Management, which is Annexure-15 to the counter-affidavit. However, no orders were passed on this appeal and the matter remained as such. THE appeal was opposed by the Committee of Management on the ground that it is not maintainable in view of the earlier order passed on 16th March, 1979. The controversy, however, was again raised in 1994 after about 18 years, when Smt. Sanno Arya retired from the post of Principal on 30th June, 1994. She handed over the charge to respondent No. 1 declaring her to be the seniormost teacher and she also directed all the teachers and employees of the college to obey orders of respondent No. 1 as Principal. It is relevant to mention here that on 23rd June, 1794 District Inspector of Schools had already given a direction to the out-going Principal to hand over charge to petitioners she was seniormost lecturer in college in view of the order passed by the R. I. G. S, on 16th March 1979. However, this order was not given any attention by the out-going Principal while handing over charge to the respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the out-going Principal, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 20658 of 1994 for quashing order dated 30th June, 1994, Annexure-18 to the writ petition and also for restraining respondent No. 1 from functioning as officiating Principal of the college. This writ petition was disposed of finally with observations on 6th July, 1994. The order was however, challenged in Special Appeal No. 520 of 1994 which was allowed by the Division Bench on 19th July, 1994 and the matter has been sent back to this Court for deciding afresh after hearing parties. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged in this writ petition. It appears that during this period, the rblationship of petitioner with the management were not very smooth, the management stopped payment of selection grade and promotional grade to her. The District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 9th October, 1995 requiring management to pay selection grade and promotional grade to Km. Nirmala Gupta within the time specified therein. It was further stated that if the amount is not paid, action will be taken under Section 5 (3) of the Payment of Salaries Act and single hand operation of the salary account shall be imposed. This order of 9th October, 1995 has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 29467 of 1995. The contention of the Committee of Manage ment is that as Km, Nirmala Gupta was functioning as Principal for about eight years, she was not completed 16th years as lecturer and thus she was not entitled for the selection grade and promotional grade. This Court on 18th October, 1995 passed interim order directing the District Inspector of Schools not to place account of the college under single hand operation. In this writ petition, counter-affidavit with stay vacation application has been filed on behalf of Km. Nirmala Gupta. No counter-affidavit has, however, been filed by the learned standing counsel in spite of the time granted. Time for rejoinder-affidavit was granted to petitioner. However, no rejoin der-affidavit has been filed, on 13th December, 1995, assurance was given to the Court that Km. Nirmala Gupta (respondent No. 4 therein) shall be paid the lecturer's grade whenever it falls due.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that Km. Nirmala Gupta claimed selection grade on basis "of the Government Notification dated 29th December, 1987 which provided that the lecturers who completed 16 years continuous service shall be entitled for selection grade. She claimed this grade w. e. f. 1st November, 1985 on basis of her appointment on 4th August, i969. The claim was resisted on the ground that she has not completed 16 years continuous service as for about eight years she was officiating as Principal. The R. I. G. S. vide order dated 27th February, 1987 rejected the objection of the Committee of Management and found Km. Nirmala Gupta entitled for the payment of selection grade. The Government Order dated 24th July, 1988 made provisions for payment of promotional grade which was claimed by Km. Nirmala Gupta on 5th February, 1994. The District Inspector of Schools by order dated 25th February, 1994 found her entitled for the promotional grade. The Committee of Management, however, again resisted the payment of promo tional grade on basis of the fact that she officiated as Principal for about eight years. However, this objection was not accepted and the District Inspector of Schools on 29th September, 1995 directed the Committee of Management to fix salary of Km. Nirmala Gupta for promotional grade which was not complied with. It was in the aforesaid context that the impugned order dated 9th October, 1995 was passed.;