Teachers are entitled to the regular pay scale upon completing five years of service, despite pending inquiries.

The appellant was appointed as an assistant teacher on July 3, 2010, under terms stipulating a fixed pay scale for five years followed by a regular pay scale

Upon completion of five years, the respondents withheld the regular pay scale and, on December 12, 2018, issued a show-cause notice alleging her name was missing from the original selection list

While a Single Judge quashed this notice in 2020, the Division Bench in a subsequent appeal (LPA 866/2020) permitted the inquiry into the recruitment's validity to continue but did not expressly authorize the withholding of benefits

The appellant sought parity with similarly situated teachers who had obtained orders for regular pay in SCA No. 13834 of 2022

The Single Judge in the impugned order directed the conclusion of the inquiry within four months but did not grant immediate parity regarding the pay scale

1. Whether an assistant teacher, whose recruitment is under inquiry, is entitled to a regular pay scale upon completion of the mandatory five-year fixed-pay period as per the original terms of appointment

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to parity with other similarly situated teachers who were granted regular pay scales despite ongoing inquiries into their appointments

The Court applied the principle of contractual and service parity, holding that employees must be paid according to the prescribed terms of their recruitment for the duration they hold the post

It relied on the precedent set in SCA No. 13834 of 2022, which established that even if recruitment is "under a cloud," the State cannot curtail benefits or regular pay scales while the employees continue to serve, as long as no final order of termination has been passed

The Court also interpreted the interim order of the Division Bench in LPA No. 866 of 2020, noting it permitted the inquiry to proceed but did not mandate the deprivation of statutory or contractual salary increments

The Court reasoned that since the appellant is actively serving in her role, the denial of a regular pay scale—which was a condition of her appointment—cannot be justified

Even if the appointment is eventually set aside following the inquiry, the appellant remains entitled to the salary prescribed for the job as per the recruitment terms for the period of her service

The Court observed that other teachers facing identical allegations of recruitment irregularities had already been granted the regular pay scale by the Court in SCA No. 13834 of 2022; therefore, withholding the same from the appellant constituted unjustifiable discrimination

The respondents were directed to process the release of the regular pay scale and arrears within 12 weeks. The Court clarified that while the inquiry into the appointment may continue, the appellant is entitled to the financial benefits of the post in the interim, as held in the case of identically placed Assistant Teachers