Bombay High Court Allows Teacher's Petition for Regular Pay Scale Instead of Honorarium for Promotional Period as Shikshan Sevak. Clause 8 of Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 held inapplicable to promotions, as it only applies to initial appointments.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: KOLHAPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 86
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Shivaji s/o Sukdev Lawate, an Assistant Teacher at Shriman Chandulal Sheth High School, Khed, Ratnagiri, was promoted to the post of Shikshan Sevak (Assistant Teacher) on a regular pay scale. However, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri, relying on Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005, held that the petitioner was entitled only to honorarium for the initial three years of his promotional appointment. The petitioner challenged this order before the Bombay High Court, seeking a direction to grant him the regular pay scale applicable to the post of Assistant Teacher. The court examined the Government Resolution and noted that Clause 8 specifically deals with initial appointments of Shikshan Sevaks and provides for honorarium for the first three years. However, the court found that the petitioner's case was one of promotion, not initial appointment. The court held that the Government Resolution does not apply to promotions, and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the regular pay scale from the date of his promotion. The court set aside the Education Officer's order and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the regular pay scale with consequential benefits. The writ petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Promotion - Pay Scale - Honorarium - Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, was promoted to Shikshan Sevak post but was granted honorarium instead of regular pay scale for the initial three years by the Education Officer relying on Clause 8 of Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 - Court held that Clause 8 applies only to initial appointments and not to promotions, and directed that the petitioner be granted regular pay scale from the date of promotion - Held that the Education Officer's order was erroneous and set aside (Paras 3-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a teacher promoted to the post of Shikshan Sevak (Assistant Teacher) is entitled to regular pay scale or only honorarium for the initial three years of such promotional appointment under Clause 8 of Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri, and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner regular pay scale from the date of his promotion with consequential benefits. Rule made absolute.

Law Points

  • Promotion to Shikshan Sevak post entitles teacher to regular pay scale
  • not honorarium
  • Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 Clause 8 applies only to initial appointments
  • not promotions
  • Education Officer's reliance on Clause 8 for promotional period is erroneous
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 248

Civil Writ Petition No. 11591 of 2025

2025-12-11

M. S. Karnik, Ajit B. Kadethankar

Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar for Petitioner, Mr. A. P. Vanarase, A.G.P., for Respondent-State

Shivaji s/o Sukdev Lawate

The State of Maharashtra, The Director of Education, The Deputy Director of Education, The Education Officer (Secondary), Sahjiwan Shikshan Sanstha Khed, Shriman Chandulal Sheth High School & Junior College

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil Writ Petition challenging the order of Education Officer granting honorarium instead of regular pay scale for promotional period as Shikshan Sevak.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks direction to Education Officer to grant regular pay scale applicable to Assistant Teacher from the date of promotion.

Filing Reason

Education Officer relied on Clause 8 of Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 to hold petitioner entitled only to honorarium for initial three years of promotional appointment.

Previous Decisions

Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri passed order granting honorarium for three years.

Issues

Whether Clause 8 of Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 applies to promotions or only to initial appointments. Whether a teacher promoted to Shikshan Sevak is entitled to regular pay scale or honorarium for the initial three years.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he was promoted to the post of Shikshan Sevak on regular pay scale and Clause 8 of Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 applies only to initial appointments, not promotions. Respondent-State supported the Education Officer's order relying on Clause 8.

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 8 of Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 applies only to initial appointments of Shikshan Sevaks and not to promotions. Therefore, a teacher promoted to the post of Shikshan Sevak is entitled to the regular pay scale from the date of promotion, not honorarium.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioner challenges the payment of honorarium for the period of three years during which he served as a Shikshan Sevak, despite he having been promoted to the post of Shikshan Sevak (Assistant Teacher) on a regular pay scale. Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 applies only to initial appointments and not to promotions.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11591 of 2025 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, challenging the order of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri. The court heard the parties and disposed of the petition finally.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Revenue Appeal in Income Tax Case — Payment to Retiring Partners Held Capital Expenditure. Amount of Rs.1,34,678 paid to retiring partners under Memorandum of Understanding is capital expenditure not deductible as revenue e...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Teacher's Petition for Regular Pay Scale Instead of Honorarium for Promotional Period as Shikshan Sevak. Clause 8 of Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 held inapplicable to promotions, as it only applies to initial ap...