Promotion from non-teaching to teaching post entitles employee to regular pay scale from initial date of appointment.

The Petitioner, originally a non-teaching employee (Peon) at an aided school, acquired M.A. and B.Ed. qualifications and was promoted to the vacant post of Shikshan Sevak (Assistant Teacher) on October 1, 2021.

While the promotion was approved, Respondent No. 4 (Education Officer) granted approval on a monthly honorarium of ₹8,000 for the initial three years based on Clause 8 of the Government Resolution (GR) dated June 10, 2005.

After completing three years, the Petitioner was granted a regular pay scale (S-14) effective from October 1, 2024.

The Petitioner challenged the Education Officer's refusal (dated December 22, 2025) to grant the regular pay scale for the initial three-year period, arguing that a promoted employee should not be reduced to a fixed honorarium.

1. Whether a non-teaching staff member promoted to a teaching post is entitled to a regular pay scale from the date of appointment instead of a fixed honorarium for the initial three-year "Shikshan Sevak" period.

2. Whether the subsequent Government Resolution dated March 25, 2026, which superseded Clause 8 of the 2005 GR, applies retrospectively to the Petitioner’s case.

Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated June 10, 2005, is arbitrary and discriminatory when applied to "promotions" from non-teaching to teaching staff.

The placement of qualified non-teaching staff in a teaching post is a promotion, not a fresh appointment, and thus cannot result in pecuniary loss.

Administrative resolutions generally do not have retrospective effect.

The Supreme Court's decision in Sant Bhagwan Baba Shikshan Mandal v. Gunwant (2024 INSC 405) did not create a bar against granting regular pay scales in such promotional contexts.

Clause 8 of the 2005 GR operates as a promotional avenue for qualified non-teaching staff; if an employee already drawing a regular pay scale in a non-teaching post is placed on a teaching post as a "Shikshan Sevak" on a mere honorarium, it results in a "drastic reduction" in pay and "gross discrimination".

The Court adopted the logic from Shri Suhas v. State that such an anomaly prejudices the employee's interests and must be rectified by treating the post as that of an Assistant Teacher with the corresponding pay scale.

The Court rejected the applicability of the GR dated March 25, 2026, noting that the Petitioner’s appointment occurred in 2021 and administrative resolutions generally do not have retrospective effect.

The Court dismissed the State's reliance on the Sant Bhagwan Baba case, noting that the specific issue of honorarium versus regular pay scale was not the subject of that judgment.

The Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Education Officer's order dated December 22, 2025, directing Respondent No. 4 to issue a corrected approval order treating the Petitioner's service on a regular pay scale applicable to Assistant Teachers effective from the date of promotion (October 1, 2021) and release salary dues within eight weeks.