Blog

In the present case, the question of law and fact is the same in all these writs and hence they were clubbed together. The petitioners in the present batch of writs were aggrieved by the order which withdraws the regular pay scale granted to them from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners are working in the post of Teacher in Municipal   Corporation, Raipur, and on 15.09.1993 /21.09.1993   their services were regularized on the   pay­scale   of   Rs.   1400­2640/­ plus additional allowances. Thereafter,   a   show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners as per Circular dated   05/01/2011   as to why they are entitled to regular pay­scale   from the date of their initial appointment and why their regular pay­scale   may not be withdrawn,   to which the petitioners replied but by the impugned order (Annexure P/1), the Municipal Corporation withdrew regular   pay­scale   granted to the petitioners holding that by the Circular dated 05/01/2011,   petitioners are not entitled to regular pay­scale as in their appointment orders, probation period of two years has not been mentioned and also directed for recovery of the amount already paid to the petitioners.

The Petitioners submitted that Municipal Corporation has only considered the Circular dated   05/01/2011   and held that since petitioners were not appointed before 1992 and after   1995   and in their appointment orders, probation period of two years has not been mentioned,   therefore,   they are not entitled to regular pay­scale from the date of their initial appointment. They would also submit that omission of the probation period is only a clerical mistake and the petitioners could not be made to suffer for that, as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

The Respondents stated that the grant of regular pay­scale to the petitioners has rightly been withdrawn by the Municipal Corporation. 

The Court held that” by order dated 04/05/2011, petitioners were granted the benefit of regular   pay­scale   from the date of their initial appointment and it is also not in dispute that it has been withdrawn by the impugned order holding that by Circular dated 05/01/2011 the petitioners were not appointed before 1992   and after   1995   and in their appointment orders, there is no mention of probation period of two years.   However,   the Municipal   Corporation omitted to consider the Circular dated 21/06/2007 in which it has clearly been held that teachers appointed between 1982-­83 to 1994­-95 are entitled to arrears of regular pay­scale from the date of their appointment. This fact has neither been considered in the show cause notice nor it has been mentioned in the impugned order.   Furthermore,   the impugned order simply states that the period of probation has not been mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioners, but no such finding has been recorded by the Municipal Corporation that the probation period of two years has not been completed by the petitioners. The petitioners have been working for about   20­-25   years and merely   non­mentioning   of the probation period in their appointment orders cannot deprive them of the benefits to which they are otherwise entitled.   Thus,   in light of the aforesaid fact that Circular dated 04/05/2011 has not been considered by the Municipal Corporation and since the finding recorded by the by order dated 4/05/2011,   petitioners were granted the benefit of regular   pay­scale   from the date of their initial appointment and it is also not in dispute that it has been withdrawn by the impugned order holding that in accordance with Circular dated 05/01/2011 the petitioners were not appointed prior to   1992   and after   1995   and in their appointment orders, there is no mention of probation period of two years.

Click here for the Judgement