- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner was ap pointed as Head Master on 13th July, 1964 in L. T Grade. On account of completion of 16 years of service on 13th July, 1980, he became eligible to Selection Grade Scale in L. T grade with effect from 13th July, 1981 but the same was not given. Ul timately the dispute was decided by the District Inspector of Schools, DIOS for short, on 22nd February, 1986 wherein it was decided that the petitioner is entitled to Selection Grade pay with effect from 13th July, 1981 and accordingly he was granted Selection Grade Pay from the said date. In the meantime, the School was upgraded to High School and the petitioner was promoted to officiate as Head Master of the High School as well. The School was brought under the pur view of the U. P. High School and Inter mediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 with effect from April 1991. According to him, by reason of G. O. dated 3rd June 1989, the petitioner is entitled to a higher grade if he had continued for 6 years in the Selection Grade Scale of pay. The period of 6 years was to be calculated from 1st July, 1982. Admittedly the petitioner was granted Selection Grade Scale before 1st July, 1982. Therefore, he would be com pleting 6 years of receiving Selection Grade Scale on 1st July 1988. By reason of the said G. O. the petitioner would be eligible to the next higher grade after refixation of his pay in the revised Pay Scale. According to the respondents, the petitioner was eligible to be fixed in the revised scale at Rs. 1400- 23 (X ). By reason of such fixation in the revised scale, ac cording to the said G. O. referred to above the petitioner was eligible to the next higher grade from the Grade of Rs. 1400-2300. On the other hand, the petitioner is claiming the Trade of Rs. 2840-3164. Un less the said Scale or Grade is the next higher Grade or Scale from the revised Scale fixed, namely, Rs. 1400-2300, the petitioner cannot claim the Scale by virtue of the said G. O. The impugned order by which the petitioner's claim was rejected being Annexure '12' to the writ petition does not indicate that the said aspect was taken into account. The petitioner's case was refused on the ground that the petitioner could not be granted promo tion because no post was created and be cause there was no recommendation by the School authority to the effect that petitioner's service was satisfactory, there fore, the next higher grade could not be given. In the said order, the relevant clause has also been quoted where it has been provided that a person having continued 6 years in the Selection Grade would be en titled to the next Higher Grade. Neither the G. O. contained in Annexure '2' nor the clause quoted in the impugned order provided that the post would be available to a person continuing for 6 years in the Selection Grade only on the ground that he had discharged satisfactory duty. In ab sence of any such condition, the same can not be imposed by the respondents. There fore, the absence of recommendation can not stand in the way of granting higher scale to the petitioner. It is apparent from the said G. O. Annexure '2' and the Clause quoted in the impugned order itself that by reason of continuation of above 6 years, the petitioner would be entitled to next higher grade on the scale above the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 with effect from 1st July, 1988.
(2.) IN that view of the matter, the im pugned order contained in Annexure '12' cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. It is hereby declared that the petitioner shall be entitled to the next higher scale from the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 in terms of the Government Order contained in Annexure '2' and the clause quoted in Annexure '12' with regard there to. Therefore, the petitioner should be paid the difference of pay received by him for the period between 1st July, 1988 till the date of his retirement and shall be eligible to receive all service benefits cal culated on the basis of pay that might have been fixed in the next higher scale from the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. In the circumstances, this writ peti tion is disposed of by directing the con cerned respondent to revise the petitioner's pay in the light of the observa tion made above and pay him all balance of arrears pay and calculate the retirement benefit on the basis of last pay drawn upon such refixation and pay such retirement benefit and balance thereof, as the case may be, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned respondent. The statement of calculation may also be fur nished to the petitioner and payment thereof may be made within a period of four weeks from the date of such calcula tion and/or decision. Accordingly a writ of certiorari do issue quashing the order dated 26th October, 1993 contained in Annexure '10'. Accordingly a writ of man damus do issue for carrying out the direc tion mentioned above. The writ petition is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
(3.) A certified copy of the order may be issued on payment of usual charges within 7 days. Order accordingly. .;