# Smt.Samapika Chatterjee v. State of U.P and another

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 621
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-02-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39737 of 1999
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-samapika-chatterjee-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40623
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art.-226-Grant of
L.T. Grade Salary- G.O. 19.10.89 provides
grant of L.T. Grade-after completing 10
years services in C.T. Grade on 1.1.86Services of petitioner found satisfactoryheld-entitled for L.T. grade salary from
the date of completion of 10 years
successful
service
as
L.T.
gradePetitioner allowed with all consequential
benefits.

Held: Para 11

It is relevant to note that in the order
passed by Regional Inspectress of Girls
School, it has not been stated that
services
of
the
petitioner
are
not
satisfactory. The entitlement under the
Government Order to get salary is based
on satisfactory completion of 10 years of
service. The petitioner having admittedly
completed 10 years service on 1.1.1986,
she is clearly entitled for fixation of
salary in L.T grade from 1.1.1986.
Consequently
the
writ
petition
is
allowed. The order dated 26.8.1999
annexure-9
to
the
writ
petition
is
quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued
to the respondent to treat the petitioner
in L.T grade with effect from 1.1.1986
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
and fix her salary accordingly. The
petitioner
is
entitled
to
all
her
consequential benefits
Case law discussed:
1995 AWC-89

## Text

2 All] Smt. Samapika Chaterjee V. State of U.P. and another
621
of the authorities for the reason that under
the garb of getting the representation
decided, the party may succeed in getting
adjudicated a time barred claim, may be
by an authority having no competence or
by deciding the representation an order
may be reviewed though remedy of
review is not provided under the Statute.
In the said case, under the garb of getting
the representation decided, the party
wanted the authority under the U.P. Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 to review its
assessment. This Court while rejecting the
writ petition, held as under:-
"The review application is not
maintainable
against
the
assessment
order nor any order of rectification is
permissible asking the said authority to
decide representation would amount to
directing him to review the said order
which is not permissible in law. Creation
of a jurisdiction in a Court is a
Legislative function and it cannot be
conferred by any means by the Court.
Reviews/Appeal is a creation of Statute
and it cannot be created by acquiescence
of a party or by the order of the Court
vide United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs.
Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230 and
Kesar Singh & Ors. Vs. Sadhu, (1996) 7
SCC 711."

8. In view of the above, we are
afraid, no direction can be issued to the
respondents to decide the representation
filed by the petitioners.

9. Thus in view of the above, the
writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear
that we have not examined the merits of
the case. However, if the petitioners are
so advised, they may approach the
appropriate Forum for the relief claimed
in this petition.
 Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39737 of 1999

Smt.Samapika Chatterjee
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.P. Pandey
Sri Shiv Abhinav Upadhya
S.C.

Constitution of India-Art.-226-Grant of
L.T. Grade Salary- G.O. 19.10.89 provides
grant of L.T. Grade-after completing 10
years services in C.T. Grade on 1.1.86Services of petitioner found satisfactoryheld-entitled for L.T. grade salary from
the date of completion of 10 years
successful
service
as
L.T.
gradePetitioner allowed with all consequential
benefits.

Held: Para 11

It is relevant to note that in the order
passed by Regional Inspectress of Girls
School, it has not been stated that
services
of
the
petitioner
are
not
satisfactory. The entitlement under the
Government Order to get salary is based
on satisfactory completion of 10 years of
service. The petitioner having admittedly
completed 10 years service on 1.1.1986,
she is clearly entitled for fixation of
salary in L.T grade from 1.1.1986.
Consequently
the
writ
petition
is
allowed. The order dated 26.8.1999
annexure-9
to
the
writ
petition
is
quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued
to the respondent to treat the petitioner
in L.T grade with effect from 1.1.1986
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
and fix her salary accordingly. The
petitioner
is
entitled
to
all
her
consequential benefits
Case law discussed:
1995 AWC-89

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok B hushan, J.)

1. Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.P.
Pandey,
learned
standing
counsel
appearing for the respondents. Counter
and
rejoinder
affidavits
have
been
exchanged and with the consent of the
parties, the writ petition is being finally
decided.

2. By this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for quashing order
dated 26.8.1999 passed by Regional
Inspectress of Girls School rejecting the
representation of the petitioner claiming
fixation of salary in the L.T grade. A writ
of mandamus has also been sought
directing the respondent No.2 to pay the
salary to the petitioner along with arrears
with effect from 1.1.1986 in L.T grade.

3. Brief facts for deciding the writ
petition are; the petitioner was appointed
vide appointment letter dated 31.10.1973
in B.T.C grade in the Primary Section of
Indian Girls Inter College, Allahabad. The
appointment of the petitioner was also
approved by the Regional Inspectress of
Girls School vide order dated 18.12.1973.
The petitioner claimed entitlement for C.T
grade from 1.11.1978 after completion of
five years in B.T.C grade. The claim of
the petitioner for grant of C.T grade was
denied
by
the
order
of
Regional
Inspectress
of
Girls
School
dated
23.3.1987. The petitioner filed a writ
petition No.14469 of 1987 claiming
entitlement of grant of C.T grade. The
case of the petitioner was contested in the
writ petition. The writ petition of the
petitioner was allowed vide judgement of
this Court dated 7.2.1990. The claim of
the petitioner to be treated into C.T grade
with effect from 1.5.1980 was allowed.
Operative portion of the judgement is as
follows:

"of course, whatever amount has
been paid to the petitioner with effect
from 1.5.1980 will be adjustable. The
arrears shall be paid to the petitioner
within a period of four months from the
date of presentation of a certified copy of
this order by the petitioner before the
Regional Inspectress. The arrears will
include the salary etc. of the petitioner for
the month of May, 1990. The respondents
shall commence 'paying the salary to the
petitioner as lady teacher in the C.T grade
with all the increments etc. from the
month of June, 1990 will become payable
in the month of July, 90.
With these directions, this petition is
disposed of finally.
The petitioner is entitled to her
costs."

4. There is no dispute after the
judgement of this Court dated 7.2.1990,
the petitioner has been granted C.T grade
from 1.5.1980 and was paid salary in C.T
grade
thereafter.
Petitioner
claims
entitlement for grant of L.T grade with
effect from 1.1.1986. The representations
were submitted by the petitioner for
fixation of salary in the L.T grade in
pursuance of the Government Order dated
19.10.1989 and the order dated 2.12.1989.
The judgement of this Court in Smt.
Aruna Ghosh versus State of U.P in writ
petition No. 16360 of 1991 decided on
8.2.1995 was also relied. Petitioner
ultimately filed a writ petition No.14176
of 1991 for claiming fixation in the L.T
2 All] Smt. Samapika Chaterjee V. State of U.P. and another
623
grade. The said writ petition was disposed
of by this Court on 21.5.1999 directing
the Regional Inspectress of Girls School
to decide the representation, the Regional
Inspectress of Girls School passed an
order dated 26.8.1999 rejecting the
representation of the petitioner. Two
reasons were given in the order by
Regional Inspectress of Girls School for
refusing the grant of L.T grade. It has
been stated in the order that from the
Government Order dated 19.10.1989 it is
clear that teachers are entitled for grant of
L.T grade after 10 years of service. It has
further been stated that teachers working
in the Primary Schools which are attached
with High School and Intermediate
Colleges are not entitled for B.T.C
/C.T/L.T grade. This writ petition has
been filed challenging the said order.

5. Shri V.K.SIngh, learned counsel
for the petitioner challenging the order
contended that view taken by the
Regional Inspectress of Girls School that
teachers
working
in
the
Primary
Institution which are attached with High
School/Intermediate Colleges are not
entitled for grant of B.T.C./C.T/L.T grade
is clearly in teeth of earlier judgement of
this Court in writ petition no. 14469 of
1987 of the petitioner herself. It is further
contended that petitioner is entitled for
fixation of L.T grade after completion of
10 years satisfactory service as clarified
by order of the Director of Education
dated 2.12.1989.

6. Shri N.P.Pandey learned standing
counsel has supported the impugned order
and has reiterated the grounds taken in the
order. The learned standing counsel
however, has not been, apart from the
reasons mentioned in the order, able to
point out any other reason which dis
entitled the petitioner from grant of the
L.T.grade.

7. I have considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. Between the parties,
there is a final judgement of a Division
Bench of this Court dated 7.2.1990 copy
of which judgement has been filed as
annexure-3. By the said judgement this
Court has taken the view that petitioner
was entitled for grant of C.T grade with
effect from 1.5.1980. The State of U.P has
also filed special leave petition against the
said judgement which too has been
dismissed on 31.1.1991. In the Division
Bench judgment of this Court above
mentioned the C.T grade has been granted
to the petitioner on the basis of
petitioner's having been appointed in
B.T.C grade in the Primary Section
attached to Intermediate College. This
Court having already taken the view that
the petitioner who was B.T.C grade
teacher in Primary Section was entitled
for grant of C.T grade, it is not open for
the Regional Inspectress of Girls School
to take the view that teachers working in
the Primary School attached to High
School/Intermediate
College
are
not
entitled to B.T.C/C.T/L.T grade. The said
reasoning of the Regional Inspectress of
Girls School is clearly in teeth of the
above judgement of this Court and has to
be strongly disapproved.

8. The next reason which is not
expressly stated to be a reason for denial,
but it has been stated in the order that
according to the Government Order dated
19.10.1989 L.T grade can be given after
10 years of service. The said issue as to
when a C.T grade teacher is entitled to be
granted L.T grade has been considered by
this Court in Smt. Aruna's Ghosh (supra)
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
in which case this Court considered the
Government Order dated 19.10.1989 as
well as subsequent order of the Director
of Education dated 2.12.1989. This Court
took the view that the C.T grade teachers
are entitled for fixation in L.T grade after
10 years of satisfactory service out of
which 5 years should be as C.T grade
teacher. Another subsequent judgement of
this Court in Shakuntala Shukla's case
reported in 1995 AWC 89 again reiterated
the same view. Following observations
was made by this court in Shakuntala
Shukla's case.

"4. ........... But the impugned order in
so far as it holds that the petitioner would
be entitled to L.T. Grade with effect from
1.7.90 i.e., after completion of 10 years'
continuous satisfactory service in C. T.
grade, is, to my mind, founded on
misreading and is contrary to the
intendment of the G. O. aforesaid. What is
required in order to qualify for L. T. grade
in accordance with the G. O. afore- stated
is to have five years' service in C. T.
Grade and 10 years overall satisfactory
service. The words ' satisfactory service'
(Santosh Janak Seva) occurring in G. O.
aforesaid. In my opinion, include the
service rendered by the petitioner in J. T.
C. grade as well. 10 years' satisfactory
service within the meaning of the G. O.
aforesaid cannot be circumscribed to
service rendered in C. T. Grade alone.
That is how I have construed the G. O.
aforesaid, which amended an earlier G. O.
dated 19.10.1989, in writ petition No.
16360 of 1991 Smt. Aruna Ghosh v. State
of U.P. and others decided on 8.2.1995. I
am of the view that on a proper
construction of the G. O. aforesaid, the
petitioner would be entitled to get L. T.
grade on completion of 5 years' service in
C. T. grade and 10 years 'overall
satisfactory service after the institution
was upgraded to the level of High School.
The impugned order, therefore, deserve to
be modified to that extent."

9. Recently, I have also taken the
same view in the judgement dated
13.2.2006 in writ petition No.39731 of
2000.

10. Taking into consideration the
aforesaid fact and above view of the
matter
the
order
of
the
Regional
Inspectress of Girls School cannot be
sustained. The reasons given in the order
for refusing grant of salary in the L.T
grade cannot be sustained. At this stage, it
is also relevant to advert one more reason
given in the counter affidavit. It has been
stated in the counter affidavit that
petitioner was not promoted in C.T grade
and she does not hold the C.T grade
substantially and unless there is vacancy
in the L.T grade petitioner is not entitled
for LT grade. The said stand has been
taken in paragraph 8 & 13.

11. In the present case, the
petitioner's claim was for fixation of
salary in accordance with the Government
Order. The Court was neither called upon
to consider the promotion or entitlement
to hold the post. Under the Chapter III
Regulation 42 of the U.P Intermediate
Education Act the employees and teacher
of aided Institutions are entitled to receive
salary as fixed by State Government from
time to time. The entitlement of teachers
to
receive
salary
flow
from
the
government orders issued from time to
time. In the present case, petitioner was
claiming entitlement for fixation of salary.
It is not necessary to even examine as to
whether there was C.T grade post on
which petitioner was granted C.T grade
2 All] Smt. Raphia V. State of U.P. and others
625
and further there are L.T grade post. It is
not a case seeking promotion from C.T
grade to L.T. grade. The promotion from
C.T grade to L.T grade is governed by
Rules and Regulations. The requirement
of vacancy is necessary when question of
promotion is considered. I am not
concerned in this case with regard to
promotion in L.T grade, hence the
vacancy existence or non existence is not
relevant for purposes of present case.
Thus the grounds taken in the counter
affidavit also do not substantiate the plea
taken by the State in denying the claim of
the petitioner. It is relevant to note that in
the order passed by Regional Inspectress
of Girls School, it has not been stated that
services
of
the
petitioner
are
not
satisfactory. The entitlement under the
Government Order to get salary is based
on satisfactory completion of 10 years of
service. The petitioner having admittedly
completed 10 years service on 1.1.1986,
she is clearly entitled for fixation of salary
in L.T grade from 1.1.1986. Consequently
the writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 26.8.1999 annexure-9 to the writ
petition is quashed. A writ of mandamus
is issued to the respondent to treat the
petitioner in L.T grade with effect from
1.1.1986 and fix her salary accordingly.
The petitioner is entitled to all her
consequential benefits. The respondents
are directed to pay arrears of salary within
a period of six months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order.

12. The writ petition is allowed
accordingly.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70003 of 2005

Smt. Raphia

...Petitioner
Versus
State
of
U.P.
through
Secretary,
Department
of
Revenue,
U.P.,
at
Lucknow and others
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.R. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

High Court Rules 1952, Chapter 22 Rule5-readwith Code of Civil ProcedureSection 148-A (5)-Caveat Applicationonce filed in writ proceeding or other
proceeding not governed by C.P.C.-
Stamp reporter can not ignore from
reporting on the ground of expiry of 90
days-section
148-A
C.P.C.-held
not
applicable in writ proceedings.

Held: Para 6 and 8

From a plain reading of Section 148A of
the C.P.C., it is clear that this provision is
applicable
in
a
suit
or
proceeding
instituted or about to be instituted in a
Court. Section 148A of the C.P.C. will be
applicable to the suits or proceedings
governed by the C.P.C. and not in the
other proceedings not governed by the
C.P.C.

From perusal of the provisions of Rule 5
of Chapter XXII of The Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952, this Court is of the
considered view that once a Caveat is
filed
in
a
writ
petition
or
other
proceedings not governed by the C.P.C.,
the Stamp Reporter is bound to make a
report about filing of the Caveat. As