GOPALAN NAIR Vs. REGIONAL DY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered service as a teacher in an Upper Primary School on 17 4 1951. The said school, I am told, is in the Malabar area. Invoking the provisions of R.1 in Chap.26 of the Kerala Education Rules, 19.59, he was placed in the higher grade of scale of pay with effect from 17-4-1966. There is no controversy on this point. On the basis of certain audit objection Ext. P1 proceedings were communicated by the Assistant Educational Officer to the petitioner. In the said communication, which appears to be a copy of a letter of the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Calicut, it is pointed out that the petitioner's date of birth being 10-2-1934 he attained 18 years of age only on 10-2-1952 and that therefore his service from 10-2-1952 alone will count for higher grade. It is further mentioned therein that he has been given the higher grade of scale of pay from 17-4-1966 counting his period of service from 17 4 1951, the date on which he entered service as earlier stated. This communication is impugned herein. By the said communication the concerned authority was directed to take necessary steps for revision and fixation of his pay and for getting the excess amount paid to be refunded.

(2.) R.1(2) in Chap.26 provides that there shall be two scales of pay for teachers of aided primary schools, as in the case of teachers of Government primary Schools. It further says that all categories of primary school teachers who have completed 15 years of continuous service shall be given the higher scale of pay and others shall be given the lower scale of pay. It becomes material as to from what date the petitioner's service is to be reckoned, namely from 17-4-1951 or from 10-2-1952. The stand taken in the audit objection which has been communicated to the petitioner is that his service attaining majority alone could be taken into account; This appears to be unsustainable in view of the decision of this court in O.P. Nos. 2167 of 1973 and connected cases. Therein this court pointed out that:

(3.) It is contended by the learned Government pleader that sub-r.(2) of Rule I has been amended by adding thereto the following: