Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose from two writ petitions filed by teachers employed in Zilla Parishad schools in Amravati and Bhandara districts. The petitioners challenged a Government Circular dated 04.09.2018 which deleted Clause 12 of an earlier Circular dated 12.12.2000. Clause 12 provided an additional increment to teachers who received a District Award on Teachers' Day. The petitioners had been selected by District Level Committees before 04.09.2018 but their names were approved by the Divisional Commissioner after that date, and they were denied the additional increment. Facts: In the Amravati petition, the Selection Committee met on 27.08.2018 and recommended eligible teachers; on 03.09.2018, it directed felicitation on 05.09.2018 with permission of the Divisional Commissioner; approval came on 05.10.2018. In the Bhandara petition, the Selection Committee met on 24.08.2018 and recommended names; administrative approval for expenditure was given by the Divisional Commissioner on 31.08.2018; felicitation and certificate distribution occurred on 05.09.2018. Thus, all petitioners were selected and recommended before 04.09.2018, but final approval and certificates came after. Legal Issues: Whether Circular dated 04.09.2018 operated retrospectively to deprive teachers selected before that date of additional increment; whether approval by Divisional Commissioner after 04.09.2018 disentitled them; and legality of the communication dated 23.07.2019. Arguments: Petitioners argued that their selection was complete before the deletion, and the circular should operate prospectively only; they relied on Sanjay Ramkrushan Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra and a communication dated 03.09.2020. Respondents argued that mere recommendation by Zilla Parishad was not final; selection became final only upon approval by Divisional Commissioner, which occurred after 04.09.2018; they relied on Sethi Auto Service Station v. Delhi Development Authority. Court's Analysis: The Court observed that under Circular dated 12.12.2000, selection by the District Level Committee was the crucial step, and the award was to be given on 5th September each year. Therefore, identification of eligible teachers had to occur before that date. The deletion of Clause 12 by Circular dated 04.09.2018 was intended to operate prospectively from 04.09.2018; it did not intend to take away awards already recommended. The Court held that approval by the Divisional Commissioner after 04.09.2018 related back to the date of selection by the Committee. The reliance on Sethi Auto was misplaced as that case concerned file notings and legitimate expectation, not a completed selection. Decision: The High Court held that the petitioners, having been selected by the District Level Committee before 04.09.2018, were entitled to the additional increment under Clause 12 of Circular dated 12.12.2000. The impugned Circular dated 04.09.2018 could not be applied to deny them the benefit. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Additional Increment - District Awardee Teachers - Maharashtra Government Circular dated 12.12.2000 Clause 12 read with Circular dated 04.09.2018 - The issue was whether deletion of Clause 12 by Circular dated 04.09.2018 retrospectively denied additional increment to teachers selected by District Level Committee before 04.09.2018 but approved by Divisional Commissioner afterwards. Held that the Circular operates prospectively from 04.09.2018 and does not deprive teachers selected before that date of the additional increment; selection by the Committee is the crucial step entitling award (Paras 6-7). B) Administrative Law - Prospective Operation of Circulars - Relating Back of Approval - Maharashtra Government Circular dated 12.12.2000 Clause 12 and Circular dated 04.09.2018 - Approval by Divisional Commissioner after 04.09.2018 relates back to the date of selection by Zilla Parishad Committee; deletion of clause cannot disentitle teachers whose selection was completed prior to 04.09.2018. Held that once a name recommended by the Committee is approved, approval relates back to date of selection, and no teacher can be deprived solely on ground of later approval (Paras 7). C) Precedent - Distinguishing Sethi Auto Service Station - Legitimate Expectation vs Vested Right - Sethi Auto Service Station v. Delhi Development Authority, (2009) 1 SCC 180 - Reliance on this decision was misplaced because it involved file notings and legitimate expectation, whereas present case concerns a completed selection process conferring vested right to award and increment. Held that the ratio of Sethi Auto does not apply to teachers selected before deletion of Clause 12 (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Government Circular dated 04.09.2018 deleting Clause 12 of Circular dated 12.12.2000 operates retrospectively to deny additional increment to teachers selected for District Award before 04.09.2018 but approved after that date; whether approval by Divisional Commissioner after 04.09.2018 disentitles such teachers; legality of communication dated 23.07.2019 in Writ Petition No.94 of 2021.
Final Decision
The High Court held that Circular dated 04.09.2018 operates prospectively from 04.09.2018 and does not deprive teachers selected by District Level Committee before that date of the additional increment under Clause 12 of Circular dated 12.12.2000. Approval by Divisional Commissioner after 04.09.2018 relates back to the date of selection by the Committee. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed.
Law Points
- Government circular deleting additional increment operates prospectively
- approval by Divisional Commissioner after 04.09.2018 relates back to date of selection
- selection by District Level Committee before deletion creates entitlement
- retrospective operation of administrative circular not intended
