Allowed

A.R.Muthu Saravanan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC13 Aug 2014WP/34572/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a part-time lecturer sought salary enhancement from Rs. 3000 to Rs. 6000 under G.O. 185. The High Court held the order applicable by analogy to peers in other colleges and directed the respondent Secretary to consider the salary proposal within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the second respondent's proposal regarding salary enhancement within eight weeks.

A.R.Muthu Saravanan Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

W.P.NO.34572 OF 2012

A.R.Muthu Saravanan

...Petitioner

Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary to Government
Tourism and Culture Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. The Commissioner of Art and Culture
Egmore,
Chennai – 8.
3. The Principal
Mamallapuram College of Architecture and Sculpture
Mamallapuram,
Kancheepuram District. ...Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the proposal of the second respondent dated 11.01.2011 and pass orders on the same with regard to enhancement of salary of the Part Time Teachers from Rs.3000/- to 6000/-.

¶10

The petitioner passed B.Sc., in the year 1998, HUCA (Optech) in the year 2000 and M.C.A. in the year 2003. He registered his name in the District Employment Exchange. The third respondent, by an order dated 01.07.2004 appointed the petitioner as Lecturer on

¶11

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

¶12

daily wages basis. Thereafter, the third respondent appointed him as Part Time Lecturer (Computer) and he was paid consolidated salary of Rs.3000/- per month.

¶13

2.It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the Government issued order in G.O.Ms.No.185, Tourism and Culture Department, dated 20.08.2010 enhancing the consolidated salary of Part Time Lecturers from Rs.3000/- to Rs.6000/- per month in respect of Government College of Arts and Crafts. The petitioner made a representation to the second respondent seeking enhancement of consolidated salary as per G.O.Ms.No.185.

¶14

3.In the meantime, the second respondent sent a proposal dated 11.01.2011 to the first respondent seeking enhancement of consolidated salary for the Part Time Lecturers in respect of the third respondent college. However, the first respondent has not chosen to pass orders on the proposal sent by the second respondent.

¶15

4.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the proposal dated 11.01.2011 of the second respondent.

¶16

5.Heard both sides. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents refuting the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶17

6.In para 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mamallapuram was previously under the administrative control of the Director of Technical Education prior to December 1991 and was called as Special Diploma Institution. The Government in G.O.(Ms)No.243, Tamil Development and Culture Department, dated 23.12.1991 have brought this Special Diploma Institution along with other Institutions under the administrative control of the Department of Art and Culture. Further it is stated that G.O.Ms.No.185 is applicable only to the Government College of Fine Arts at Chennai and Kumbakonam.

¶18

7.In my view, G.O.Ms.No.185 is applicable to the third respondent College also. Since the Part Time Lecturers working in Government College of Fine Arts at Chennai and Kumbakonam are paid Rs.6000/- per month as consolidated salary, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.185, the same yardstick shall be followed in the case of the petitioner also.

¶19

8.Accordingly, a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the proposal dated 11.01.2011 of the second respondent seeking enhancement of salary for the Part Time Lecturers working in the third respondent College, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks

¶20

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

¶21

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

9.The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction. No costs.

¶23

Sd/Asst. Registrar (LA)

¶24

//True Copy//
Sub Asst. Registrar.
TK
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Tourism and Culture Department
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Commissioner of Art and Culture
Egmore,
Chennai – 8.
3. The Principal
Mamallapuram College of Architecture and Sculpture
Mamallapuram,
Kancheepuram District.
1CC to Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, Advocate, SR 37180
1CC to Government Pleader, SR 37180
W.P.NO.34572 OF 2012
BKY [CO]
PSI 21/08/2014

¶25

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

A.R.Muthu Saravanan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.R.Muthu Saravanan v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

R.Sundari Vs the Director

V.Krishnakumar Vs Gagan

A.Valarmathi Vs Vibhu Nayar IAS

C.Chinnakannu Vs the Deputy Executive Officer

Tmt.S.Bhakkiam Vs the Superintending of Engineer

Dr.G.Korakumari Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by