Telangana High Court
WP/6833/2002 of P.S.Prasad, Vs The Registrar and the Correspondent, on 27 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NOs: 6833 of 2002 & 8178 of 2002 1) W.P.No.6833 of 2002 Between: P.S.Prasad, S/o late
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NOs: 6833 of 2002 & 8178 of 2002
1) W.P.No.6833 of 2002
Between:
P.S.Prasad, S/o late P.S.Ramachandra Murthy, Aged 45 years, Head Master (incharge)
S.K.U.Campus High School, S.V.Puram,
Anantapur, Anantapur District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Registrar and the Correspondent,
S.K.U.Campus High School,
S.V.Puram,
2. The District Educational Officer, Anantapur,
Anantapur District.
3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Cuddapah.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in fixing the pay of the Petitioner in theRevised Pay scales of 1993, sanctioning of two additional increments and fixing thepay in revised pay scales of 1999 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative ofArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 1strespondent to fix the petitioner's pay in the corresponding 1993 and 1999 revisedpay scales with two additional increments attached to Secondary Grade Teacher'sPost.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.VENKATA RAMUDU
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.P.SREE RAMULU NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: G.P for School Education
2) W.P. NO : 8178 of 2002
Between:
P.S.Prasad S/o Late P.S.Ramachandra Murthy Aged 45 years, Head Master (incharge)
S.K.U.Campus High School, S.V.Puram,
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Correspondent, S.K.University Campus High School/
The Registrar,
S.K. University, Anantapur,
Anantapur District.
2. The Regional Joint Director of School Education Cuddapah, Cuddapah District.
3. The District Educational Officer Anantapur, Anantapur District. Anantapur, Anantapur District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased topass orders, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actionof the respondents in not following the staffing pattern prescribed under the rules,and exploiting the higher services without pay as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to therules and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, andconsequently direct the respondents to follow the staffing pattern by upgrading thepetitioner as Head Master with all the attendant benefits, and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KASAJAGANMOHAN REDDYCounsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.P.SREE RAMULU NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: G.P for School Education The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner andalso the respondents. Since the parties are same in these twomatters, they are being taken up for disposal.
The petitioner, who is working as in-charge Headmaster with the firstrespondent – institution, filed these two petitions, inter alia seeking fora direction to fix his pay in the corresponding 1993 and 1999 revisedpay scales with two additional increments and also to provide thebenefits due to him in the staff pattern, prescribed under the Rules.
The facts, in brief, are that the first respondent – institution came intoexistence in the year 1971 and the same was upgraded to highschool in the year 1990. The petitioner, who possessed B.Sc andB.Ed qualifications besides passing accounts test, was appointed inthe year 1990 as Secondary Grade Teacher and in view of hisqualifications, it is claimed that he is entitled to be appointed as theHeadmaster. However, the pay fixation is not done in the properscale along with the increments to which he is entitled. Therefore, thepetitioner claims that he is entitled to placing of his pay in the proper pay scale and further in the other writ petition, he seeks to beregularly appointed as Headmaster on the basis of the existing staffpattern. Hence, these two writ petitions.
Contesting the claim of the petitioner, the case of the respondentsthrough the counter-affidavits filed by the first respondent is that theappointment of the petitioner is purely temporary. In fact, he wasinitially appointed as an Attender on 01-05-1982 and promoted toRecord Assistant and thereafter he was promoted to Junior Assistanton 09-11-1987. It was further submitted that at the relevant point oftime, the petitioner did not exercise the option for revised pay scalesand it is done only in regard to the employees who have exercisedthe option to their substantive post. But, since the petitioner did notopt for it, he is not entitled to any such indulgence as sought for. Itwas their case that there is no sanctioned post of Headmaster in theinstitution and, therefore, question of considering the case of thepetitioner does not arise as long as the posts are sanctioned.Therefore, the pay of the petitioner is liable to be fixed in the revisedpay scales in the substantive post of Junior Assistant only.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitionersought to place reliance on the Judgment, in case of similarly placedemployees, in W.P.No.5182 of 1994 dated 22-04-2002 wherein this Court allowed the same by taking intoconsideration the fact that the school was upgraded and theappointment was approved in the unaided post. In view of the saidJudgment squarely applying to the facts of the case and also being inrespect of the same institution, there is nothing to deny such benefit.Having regard to the services put in by the petitioner and also in viewof the fact that he has been working as in-charge Headmaster, apartfrom the fact that he duly holds all the required qualifications being agraduate with B.Ed., and also having passed the accounts test, inrespect of which there has been no dispute on behalf of therespondents herein, the impugned action of the respondents denyingsuch benefit is unsustainable. In view of the same, it has to be heldthat the petitioner is entitled to the scales of pay as sought for apart from considering his case for the regular post, more so, in view of theupgradation of the school and also the approval of the appointmentas observed in the aforesaid Judgment.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. Nocosts.
__________________
27-12-2004.
Lrkm.
That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.
Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this MondaytheTwenty seventh day of December Two thousand and Four.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
1. The Registrar and the Correspondent, S.K.U.Campus High School, S.K.University, S.V.Puram,
Conclusion
2. The District Educational Officer, Anantapur,
Anantapur District.
3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District.
4. 2 CCs to G.P for School Education, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)
5. 2CD copies.