Facts: The petitioners were appointed as Junior Clerks in a school based on a permission granted by the Education Officer in 2012, which stipulated that the appointments should be in line with the staffing pattern of 2005. Subsequently, the Education Officer approved the petitioners' services in 2022 but directed that the salary grant would be payable only from September 8, 2019, excluding the period from their initial appointment in 2012. This exclusion was based on the premise that a modified staffing pattern was framed by the State Government on January 28, 2019.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners, aggrieved by the partial exclusion of the salary grant period, filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the Education Officer's direction.
Issue: Whether the Education Officer's order restricting the salary grant to the petitioners from September 8, 2019, based on the modified staffing pattern of 2019, is justified when their appointments were made in 2012 as per the prevailing staffing pattern of 2005.
Holding: The High Court held that the impugned order restricting the salary grant is unsustainable and needs to be quashed. The Education Officer was directed to release the salary grant to the petitioners from the date of their appointments.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Education Officer had granted permission to fill the posts as per the staffing pattern of 2005, which was in existence at the time of the petitioners' appointments in 2012. While the Government Resolutions (G.R.) of 2013 sought to introduce a new staffing pattern, it was never implemented. The G.R. of 2015 kept the effect and operation of the 2013 G.R. in abeyance. The new staffing pattern introduced in 2019 has prospective effect and does not affect appointments made under the 2005 pattern. The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Vikas Shikshan Mandal & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., emphasizing that the staffing pattern of 2013 was never implemented and that subsequent developments should not affect prior appointments. The court also noted that the Government Resolution of 2020 clarified that it is operational from the date of its issuance. The court stated, "It is trite law that a Government Resolution, a statute, an amendment is not retrospectively applicable unless expressly provided." The court found no logic in excluding the period between the petitioners' appointments and the issuance of the 2019 G.R. from the salary grant.