9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Regularization of services of teachers appointed by Zilla Parishads, payment of arrears of salary and allowances, maintainability of writ petitions, appointment basis and service conditions, sympathetic view vs. eligibility of other applicants, entitlement of honorary teachers to benefits, legal foundation for claim of regularization, consideration of length of service, interference with impugned order, recovery of interim salary payments. Regularization of Services: The appellants were appointed as teachers by Betterment Committees on honorarium in 1988-89 and sought regularization in 1991, which was rejected by the State Government. They claimed to have been appointed by Zilla Parishads and their services were approved post facto by the Government. The court considered their qualifications, appointment basis, and service conditions, ultimately denying regularization due to lack of approval by the State Government and absence of evidence supporting their claim. Payment of Arrears: The appellants requested payment of arrears from the date of their initial appointment till the present. They argued that their services should be regularized from the date of initial appointment, entitling them to arrears on par with regularly recruited teachers. However, the court found their appointments to be temporary and honorary, not against sanctioned posts, leading to the denial of arrears and regularization. Maintainability of Writ Petitions: The writ petitions were filed in the High Court to challenge the State Government's rejection of regularization and to seek direction for treating them as regularly appointed teachers. The respondents contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners were honorary teachers appointed by School Management Committees, not Zilla Parishads or with State Government approval. The court considered these arguments before issuing directions in the case. Sympathetic View vs. Eligibility: The court sympathized with the appellants' situation but emphasized the need to balance sympathy with the eligibility of other applicants seeking employment. While acknowledging the appellants' services, the court highlighted the importance of following established rules and procedures for appointment and regularization, ultimately denying their claim for regularization based on the lack of proper approval and legal foundation for their appointments. Entitlement of Honorary Teachers: The appellants, who were appointed on honorarium basis, argued that even honorary or part-time teachers were entitled to benefits under amended rules. However, the court found their appointments lacking legal foundation and approval, leading to the rejection of their claim for regularization and associated benefits. Interference with Impugned Order: The appellants challenged the High Court's decision affirming the Single Judge's order, seeking relief based on their length of service and circumstances. The court, after considering the arguments from both sides, upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the lack of legal basis for the appellants' claim for regularization and the need to follow established procedures. Recovery of Interim Salary Payments: The court directed the Zilla Parishads to pay a basic salary to the appellants during the appeal process, with a clarification that the amount paid pursuant to interim orders should not be recovered from the appellants. This decision aimed to protect the appellants' financial interests during the legal proceedings. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' claims for regularization and arrears, emphasizing the importance of legal foundation and proper approval for appointments in public service. The court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, balancing sympathy with the need to maintain fairness in the recruitment and regularization processes.
|
