Dismissed

The Assistant Elementary v. Valliammal

Madras HC12 Mar 2014WA(MD)/369/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ appeal by the State challenging the grant of retrospective regularisation and pay fitment benefits to a teacher. The court held the cause of action arose post-retrospective order and the lower court did not mandate selection grade first.

What did the court decide?

Rejected the appellant's challenge to the grant of fitment benefits; extended time for State to grant benefits by eight weeks.

The Assistant Elementary Vs Valliammal — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:12.03.2014

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Writ Appeal (MD) No.369 OF 2014 against WP(MD).No.2248 of 2012

¶4

The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Palayamkottai Nagar Tirunelveli ...

¶5

... Appellant/Respondent

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Valliammal

¶8

... Respondent /Petitioner

¶9

PRAYER : Writ appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patents Act against the order of this Court dated 08.04.2013 made in W.P.(MD) No.2248 of 2012.

¶10

Prayer in WP(MD). 2248/ 2012 :

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned order of the respondent in A.Thi.Mu.No.249/A2/2011 dated 06.04.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to grant special grade in the post of secondary grade from 08.12.2010 and thereafter fix the scale of pay in the post of BT Assistant and grant all monetary and service benefits from 08.12.10 with all arrears to the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.H.Arumugam

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶16

The writ appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge, allowing the prayer of the respondent to grant the benefit of fitment in the promoted post in accordance with the Proviso to Fundamental Rules 22(B).

¶17

Heard Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader, for the appellant and Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the respondent.

¶18

¶19

The facts out of which the writ petition arose lie in a very narrow campus and they are as follows:

¶20

(a) the respondent was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on a consolidated pay on 08.12.1990 and her services were regularised with effect from 01.09.1992;

¶21

(b) the respondent was granted selection grade with effect from 17.09.2002 upon completion of 10 years of service in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Subsequently she was promoted as BT Assistant on 23.05.2009;

¶22

(c) Persons like the respondent, who were originally appointed on a consolidated pay basis, filed several writ petitions on the file of this Court seeking regularisation with effect from the date of their first appointment. Those writ petitions were allowed and writ appeals filed by the State were dismissed. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.336 School Education dated 30.12.2009 granting the benefit of retrospective regularisation, to all persons like the respondent irrespective of whether they approached the Court or not.

¶23

(d) Upon coming to know of the said Government order, the respondent gave a representation for the benefit of retrospective regularisation. The appellant considered the request and issued an order on 12.03.2011.

¶24

(e) Within 10 days, the respondent gave a representation on 21.03.2011 seeking refixation of pay in the promoted post, in terms of FR 22(B). The said request was turned down by an order dated 06.04.2011. Challenging the same, the respondent came up with a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the application for refitment was made within the time stipulated and hence, the respondent was entitled to the benefit. It is against the said order that the State has come up with the above appeal.

¶25

The main grievance of the appellant is actually two fold. They are,

¶26

(i) That the original cause of action for the respondent to seek refitment under FR 22(B) arose in 2009, when she was promoted to the post of BT Assistant. But the respondent made a request only on 21.03.2011 beyond the period stipulated under Proviso 8 of FR 22(B);

¶27

(ii) Moreover the respondent now claims selection grade in the lower post, after which the respondent seeks the benefit of FR22(B).

¶28

We have considered both the above grounds, on which, the appellant has come up with the above appeal. We are not convinced about the first ground. Though the cause of action for claiming the benefit of fitment under FR22(B) would normally https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arise from the date of promotion, namely, 23.05.2009, the occasion for the petitioner to seek the said benefit arose only after the regularisation orders were granted with retrospective

¶29

¶30

effect on 12.03.2011. Within one month of the said date, the respondent made an application in terms of FR22(B). Therefore, the first ground, on which, the appellant has come up with the above appeal cannot be accepted.

¶31

Insofar as the second ground is concerned, the order of the learned Judge does not say that the respondent will be first entitled to move over to the selection grade and thereafter get the benefit of FR22(B). Therefore, the second objection remains only as an apprehension.

¶32

In view of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed. We make it clear that apart from the normal benefit that the respondent would have been entitled to in terms of the proviso 8 of FR22(B), the respondent cannot claim any extra benefit. The time for the appellant to grant the benefit of FR22(B) to the respondent is extended by eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(Crl)

¶35

/True Copy/

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

¶38

The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Palayamkottai Nagar Tirunelveli

¶39

+1cc to Mr.H.Arumugam Advocate, Sr.No. 15638 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 16063 rr AA/28.03.2014/3p- 4c/

¶40

W.A.(MD) No.369 of 2014 12.03.2014

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Assistant Elementary v. Valliammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Elementary v. Valliammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Sumathi, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

S. Thiruppathy Vs the Joint Registrar

The Assistant Director of Vs M. Anand, C/O.P. Jayaraman

Indhumathi Devi, Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

G. Gopalakrishnan, Vs the Director of Town Panchayat

Government of Tamil Nadu Vs P.Helen Cecil