Entitlement to Regular Pay Scale From Initial Date of Appointment for Trainee Teachers on Probation

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers (Trainees) on a fixed salary and were sent for Basic Training Institute (BTI) training for two years

Upon successful completion of the training, their services were regularized in a higher pay scale. The petitioners claimed they were entitled to the regular pay scale from their initial date of appointment, rather than the date of regularization, citing parity with similarly situated teachers and a circular dated 05.01.2011

Their representations were rejected by the District Education Officers (DEO) in 2014 and 2016 on the grounds that they had not secured specific High Court orders or did not meet the criteria of being appointed on a fixed pay scale/probation

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment as trainee teachers rather than the date of completion of training/regularization

2. Whether the rejection of the petitioners' representations by the respondent authorities was discriminatory given that similarly situated employees had been granted the benefit

The Court primarily relied on the principle of parity and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It referenced the precedent set in Madhukant Yadu and 56 others v. State of M.P. and others (O.A. 2745/1989), which established that trainee teachers under similar conditions are entitled to regular pay scales from their initial date of appointment

The Court also focused on the School Education Department's circular dated 05.01.2011 regarding the extension of service benefits

The Court observed that the petitioners were placed on a fixed salary and probation while undergoing mandatory BTI training

The Court noted that the State's primary defense—that benefits were only extended to those teachers who possessed specific High Court orders—was inherently flawed, as legal benefits should apply to all similarly situated persons without necessitating individual litigation

Regarding WPS No. 5128 of 2017, the Court scrutinized the DEO’s finding that the petitioner was not on a fixed pay scale and contrasted this with Annexure P/3, which demonstrated that other similarly situated teachers had indeed received the benefit

Consequently, the Court found the summary rejection of representations without considering the parity established by previous judicial pronouncements to be unsustainable

In WPS No. 3507 of 2017, the DEO Bilaspur was directed to consider the petitioner's claim in light of the benefits extended to similarly situated teachers within 120 days

In WPS No. 5128 of 2017, the respondent was directed to reconsider the matter afresh; the petitioner was permitted to file a detailed representation within 30 days, which the authority must decide within a further 90 days