Najmi Waziri JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The present common judgment disposes off a set of appeals in respect of the order in WP (C) No. 758 of 1995 and WP (C) No. 1551 of 1995 (being LPA nos. 434 of 2009 and 403 of 2010 respectively) along with WP (C) No. 614 of 2010 filed by eight teachers against the Delhi Cantonment Board, the present appellant. These appeals arise from judgments dated 27.04.2009 and 22.03.2010 by a learned single judge in the aforementioned writ proceedings. The dispute relates to the promotion and grant of pay scale in respect of certain assistant teachers to the TGT grade from the date as per which the respondents were discharging their duties on the said post in the certain middle and secondary schools governed by the Delhi Cantonment Board.
Facts
The Delhi Cantonment Board is a statutory body constituted under the Cantonment Act, 2006. The employees including the teachers of cantonment schools are governed under the Cantonment Fund Servant Rules (CFS Rules). The appellant is running six schools (Uri Enclave, DID Lines, Jharera, Sadar Bazaar, Mehram Nagar and Old Nangal) throughout the territory of Delhi.
2. The respondents, although qualified to be Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT), were appointed as Assistant teachers in the pay scale of Rs. 330, on different dates in 1989, as the Schools run by the appellant at that time were upto Primary level only. Thus, for the period of 1989-92, there were in all 89 teachers in the six aforementioned schools. On 4th April 1992, the Director of Education granted recognition of upgraded primary schools upto middle level in three of the aforementioned six schools (Uri Enclave, DID lines and Jharera) were upgraded to Middle level schools and subsequently in 2003, they were further upgraded to Secondary Level schools. At the behest of the appellant, the respondents were also teaching secondary classes. The said upgradation came on a request made by the appellant vide letter dated 8.6.1992 for the unaided schools run by them. Further, in 2003, the remaining three schools (Sadar Bazaar, Mehram Nagar, Old Nangal) were upgraded to Middle Level as well.
3. Immediately subsequent to the upgrade of these schools, the respondents have been, on the appellant's instructions, teaching Middle Level Classes. Since these teachers were qualified to be TGT, they were entrusted with the duties of teaching middle/secondary level classes by the appellant. (Annexure A-lists out date of appointment, educational qualifications and duration of teaching in Cantonment board schools). The appellants also certified that the respondents were satisfactorily performing their teaching duties in middle level classes.
4. Despite performing their teaching duties to the fullest, the appellants have failed to promote or grant the requisite pay scale of TGT to the respondents, who continued to be on the post and draw salaries equivalent of Assistant Teachers. The respondents issued a legal notice dated 20.1.1995 on the appellant but regardless of the service of notice, they were denied the scale of TGT. Thereafter, the respondents had filed a writ petition against the appellant before this Court being W.P. No. 758 of 1995 seeking, inter alia, promotion taking view the past service at the post of TGT and arrears of pay at the scale of TGT, to prevent the Board from adhering to direct recruitment of TGT contrary to the Rules.
5. The Board sought sanction for appointment of TGT teachers from the Competent Authority as there were no TGT posts under the existing CFS rules and such sanction was received for upgradation of 41 assistant teachers to the post of TGT only on 1st September 2005 without any financial benefit. This sanction neglected the past services of the respondents and stated that the promotion to TGT is merely ........