Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Munni Devi v. D.D.E. & Others - WRIT - A No. 43857 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 5743 (14 November 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.27

1. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43857 of 1999

Smt. Munni Devi                                     .......Petitioners


Deputy Director of Education

(Madhyamik) and others                       ....Respondents.              


Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

Heard Sri Satya Prakash learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri I.S. Singh learned counsel for the respondent and Smt. Sunita Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 Committee of Management.

This petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing the order dated 26.7.99 passed by Dy. Director of Education (Annexure-11) whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of  L.T. grade pay scale has been rejected. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as B.T.C. grade teacher                                                                                                            in Primary Section of Hindu Mahila Inter College Allahabad on 3.2.1982. The said appointment of the petitioner was made under the provisions of First Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 against substantive vacancy. Under the relevant Government Order, according to the petitioner she was entitled to C.T. grade pay scale after completing five years service. She was not given the C. T. grade pay scale whereupon she filed a petition before this Court in which a direction was issued to the respondent to take appropriate decision in the matter. The Dy. Director of Education (Secondary) vide order dated 8.1.97 (Annexure-4) allowed the C.T. grade pay scale to the petitioner w. e. f. 3.2.1987. Thereafter the petitioner has claimed that she is entitled to L.T. grade pay scale w. e. f. 3.2.92 i. e. upon completion of ten years of service and five years in the C.T. grade. It is this claim of the petitioner which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 26.7.99.

It is submitted by  the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having completed ten years of service and five years in the C.T. grade pay scale she would be entitled to L.T. grade pay scale w. e. f. 3.2.92 as per the relevant government orders and therefore the impugned order is bad.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondent in which it is alleged that the petitioner was initially appointed to teach class 1 to 5 (Primary section) and in case she started to teach classes 6 to 8 with the permission of the management no financial liability could be saddled on the State for granting higher scale. It has further been stated that under the relevant government order the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion in L.T. grade under 25% quota  upon availability of vacancy and such  claim of the petitioner for promotion would be considered according to law (Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit).

Further vide Annexure-13 to the counter affidavit the resolution of the Committee of Management of the institution has been annexed according to which the Committee of Management has granted promotion to the petitioner vide resolution dated 30.3.2003 under 25% quota.

In view of the facts and circumstances as of now, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the L.T. Grade has arisen only on 30.3.2003 when the Committee of Management resolved to promote the petitioner and during course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that despite the said promotion by the Committee of Management, the State respondent have as yet not granted approval to the said promotion and as a result the petitioner is not getting the pay scale of L.T. grade but is only getting pay scale of C.T. Grade.

In this view of the matter the claim of the petitioner for the  L.T. grade pay scale from 1992 does not appear to  have any substance. The only claim of the petitioner appears to be with regard to promotion in the L.T. grade under the 25% quota. Thus in view of the fact that the respondents as well as the Committee of management both admit that the petitioner is entitled to promotion under 25% quota as per the relevant government order, it is directed that the respondent no.1 Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik) IV  Region Allahabad may take appropriate decision regarding grant of approval to the promotion of the petitioner subject to the availability of vacancy and other conditions being fulfilled as required under the relevant government orders within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Dt. 14.11.2005



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.