Written Petition for Instructor Pay Scale

Written petition for Pay Scale Teachers written by Nikhil Bharadwaj Student of Amity Law School Noida

Director of Primary Education, Odisha & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo

Background:

A challenge was based on an order of the High Court of Orissa that the complainant’s written complaint against the order of the Odisha Administrative Court was unsuccessful. The tribunal had instructed the complainant to grant a salary scale for trained art teachers, ie Rs.1080 / – Rs.1800 / -.
The interviewee was appointed as part of the rehabilitation program after the death of his father Basanta Kumar Sahoo. He joined as a primary school teacher in pursuing this order in the Rs.780 / – – Rs.1140 / – wage scale.
The respondent had an intermediate qualification at this point and had appeared for the BA exam when he was appointed as a primary school teacher against the Matric Teachers Certificate Post. Said salary scale is payable to untrained teachers with a high school diploma, while the salary scale of Rs.840 / – – Rs.1240 / – is the salary scale granted to trained Matric teachers. The Revised Orissa Wage Scale Rules, 1990, were published by the Odisha government on September 12, 1990, and the 1989 Orissa Revised Wage Scale Rules were amended. The aforementioned amendment rules from 1990 established a separate wage scale for all positions of permanently trained Matric teachers and untrained Matric teachers.
A corrigendum was then issued on August 27, 1992 listing the wage scales for the untrained middle school teacher and the trained college teacher.
The respondent stated that from the date of his appointment he was entitled to a salary range of Rs 840 – – Rs / – 1240 and a range of Rs / – 840. 1080-1800 from Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, as amended in 1990. Not being granted this pay scale, he relied on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The basis of the argument is that he is moderately difficult and should therefore be treated as a trained teacher qualifying him to pay 1080 rupees / – 1800 rupees /.
The complainant admitted that the teachers with intermediate qualifications were entitled to the remuneration available to the trained university teachers. Based on this concession, the learned tribunal approved the original motion on February 19, 2010.
The complainant submitted an application, among other things, because the complainant’s lawyer had made the wrong submission. Such a request was dismissed on the grounds that the complainant’s remedy consisted of either filing a request for review or a request for amendment. However, since this application was submitted two years after the decision was issued by the tribunal, it was rejected on the grounds of Laches, and no error can be seen on the front of the order.
The complainant then submitted the request for review, which had been rejected on January 22, 2015. The written application was then submitted, which was rejected on the basis of the decision objected to in the present complaint.

Complainant allegation:

The complainant alleged that the separate salary levels were intended for untrained and trained teachers. Just because the respondent was of moderate difficulty, which is a higher qualification than the Abitur, he is not a trained teacher. Therefore, the license granted by the public prosecutor is a faulty license in the law and does not bind the complainant. Reference was made to Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v Balwan Singh & Ors.

Claim of the respondents:

It was also argued that since the interviewee is of higher qualification and is a graduate, he was entitled to the allowance provided for trained stencil teachers and that the state was bound by the concession his attorney gave before the tribunal.

Court observations:

The court found that the distinction between trained and untrained teachers was not recognized by the tribunal and that the same mistake was made by the High Court.
The Court stated that the concession granted by the Council of State before the Tribunal was a concession contrary to the law and that such a concession was not binding on the State as there could be no legal link.
The court said that the rules provide for a specific salary level, so the concession that the learned prosecutor granted before the tribunal is not binding on the applicant.
The court mentioned that the trained matric teacher was the one who had been trained for teaching purposes and that in the absence of such training, the respondent could not be described as a trained matric teacher entitled to the remuneration provided for those teachers. The classification based on educational qualification for granting the higher pay scale to a trained person or person with higher qualifications is a valid classification

evaluation

The court found that the Tribunal’s decision, which was upheld by the High Court, was not legally sustainable. As a result, the appeal was allowed. The respondent’s original request was rejected.

Comments are closed.