Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9950/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9950 of 2009
=========================================================
DISTRICT
EDUCATION OFFICER & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UMIYASHANKAR
BHULESHVAR JOSHI & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
MOXA THAKKER ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
MAMTA R VYAS for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR DIPEN A DESAI for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 08/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Even
as petitioners No.1 and 2 have been transposed as respondents,
petitioners, authorities concerned of the State Government, have
invoked Articles 14, 16, 226 of the Constitution to challenge the
judgment and order dated 11.5.2007 of Gujarat Higher Secondary
Schools Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Application No.56 of 2003
whereby it is ordered that the applicant therein should be upgraded
as a higher secondary teacher from December 1981, he should be placed
in the pay-scale of Rs.550-900 notionally and thereafter from
01.01.1986 in the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900. It is further directed
that the actual benefit shall be granted from the date of filing of
the application, i.e. 20.03.2003. Even as the present petitioners,
who were opponents before the Tribunal, chose not to lead any
documentary evidence to substantiate their arguments or to controvert
the arguments of the applicant, it was submitted before this Court by
learned A.G.P. that there was genuine factual dispute about the
respondent having had more than 50% workload since the year 1981. It
is, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, recorded as a finding
of fact in the impugned order that, from 1981 the respondent was
given additional 5 periods of Logic in Std. XII, 3 periods of
Sanskrit in Std. XII and 10 periods of Sanskrit in Std. XI.
Therefore, total 18 periods were given to him in higher secondary
classes which exceeded 50% of workload. Besides that, the respondent
had acquired degree of M.A. In the year 1981. Though it was true that
the respondent was appointed as a higher secondary teacher by direct
recruitment on 27.11.1986, he was entitled to first higher pay scale
in 1983 and upgradation in the year 1990. The Tribunal has, in the
impugned order, applied Government Resolution dated 21.6.1989 to the
facts of the case and it is not shown as to how and why that
Resolution was not applicable in the facts of this case.
2. In
the above facts, the petition is found to have no merits and hence it
is dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(
D.H.Waghela, J.)
(KMG
Thilake)
Top