The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director, Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, to consider afresh the individual claims of 145 Vishistha B.T.C. (VBTC) 2004 trainees seeking payment of their remaining stipend under the Government Order dated January 14, 2004.
A Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan disposed of the writ petition after the State counsel conceded that the controversy was covered by an earlier judgment of the High Court. The petitioners had sought payment of Rs.17,500 each, along with interest, towards the remaining stipend.
The dispute traces back to the Uttar Pradesh Government’s efforts around 2000 to address a shortage of primary school teachers, for which it introduced the Special BTC Training Course. In 2004, the Government issued an order providing that selected candidates, who were B.Ed. degree holders and underwent the six-month Special BTC training, would receive a monthly stipend of Rs.2,500 from the commencement of training until their appointment.
However, the appointment of several trainees was delayed for more than seven years. Despite the original terms providing for stipend until appointment, the Government subsequently sought to restrict the payment. In 2015, it issued a corrigendum taking the position that the stipend was intended only for the training period and could not extend beyond it.
The trainees challenged the Government’s stand before the courts. The litigation ultimately resulted in the Supreme Court upholding their entitlement to stipend beyond the six-month training period, including for the period during which their appointments remained delayed.
Also Read ‘Mediation Is the Future’: Delhi HC Bar Launches Dedicated Mediation Knowledge Corner
The Allahabad High Court’s present order records that the earlier litigation had already established the entitlement under Clause 3(12) of the Government Order dated January 14, 2004. In Avneesh Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and others, the Court had held that the trainees were entitled to stipend until their appointment as Assistant Teachers and had directed payment at Rs.2,500 per month for the relevant period.
The issue, however, remained unresolved for a number of similarly placed trainees. Earlier contempt proceedings were initiated over non-compliance with court directions, while subsequent proceedings permitted trainees who had not received their dues to raise their claims before the competent authority. The petitioners also relied on orders directing consideration of claims of other Special BTC 2004 trainees.
In the present proceedings, the State counsel admitted that the controversy was covered by the earlier judgment. The Court, however, did not itself determine the individual monetary claims. Instead, it directed the 145 petitioners to submit fresh individual representations setting out their claims for stipend under Clause 3(12) of the 2004 Government Order before the Director, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow, within two weeks.
The Director has been directed to consider the representations, along with the earlier directions issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court, and pass appropriate orders preferably within four weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.
