Allowed

S.Selvaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Jun 2015WP/16341/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226, quashing an order that denied arrears of pay to retired teachers. The court directed the respondents to grant selection grade benefits with monetary arrears to those who joined as Secondary Grade Teachers before June 1, 1988, relying on a precedent to prevent discrimination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed. Respondents directed to grant arrears of pay and Selection Grade benefits within 12 weeks.

S.Selvaraj Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

W.P.No.16341 of 2015

And

M.P.No.1 of 2015

1 S.Selvaraj
2 N.Gopalan
3 P.Natrajan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1 The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep by Secretary to the Government School
Education Department Fort St. George
Chennai 9
2 The Director of Elementary
Education College Road Chennai 6
3 The District Elementary
Educational Officer Erode District
Erode
4 The Addl. Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer Kangeyam Panchayat
Union Kangeyam Erode District. ... Respondents
Prayer:

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.2200/C2/2010 dt 23.7.2010 and quash the same in so far as it denies arrears of pay and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to grant arrears of pay in respect of pay fixation done under the G.O.Ms. No.207 School Education (G2) Department dated 30.9.2008 to the petitioners.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Saseetharan For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Special Government Pleader

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Heard both sides. By consent of both the parties, the writ

¶13

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

¶14

petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

2.All the petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in Kangeyam Panchayat Union, Erode District before 01.06.1988. All the petitioners are promoted as Primary School Headmaster after 01.06.1988 as per the seniority and then retired from service as Primary School Headmasters from Kangeyam Panchayat Union, Erode District. They are governed by Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational Subordinate Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

3.Before 01.06.1988, the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as well as the post of Primary School Headmaster carried the same scale of pay. After 01.06.1988, the post of Primary School Headmaster became promotional post from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and higher scale was given, during which time, the Secondary Grade Teachers, who were holding the post of Primary School Headmaster as on 01.06.1988 were allowed to be continued as Primary School Headmaster after 01.06.1988, that is, the juniors, who were holding the post as on 01.06.1988 continued as Primary School Headmasters, while some of their seniors continued to work as Secondary Grade Teachers. This led to lot of litigations. Ultimately, the Government resolved the same by issuing various orders to count the service rendered as Secondary Grade Teacher to grant Selection / Special Grade in the post of Primary School Headmasters, if the Secondary Grade Teachers joined before 01.06.1988.

¶17

4.The grievance of the petitioners is that they should also be given the same benefit with arrears.

¶18

5.I have considered identical issue in W.P.Nos.12584 and 12585 of 2015 and has passed orders on 27.04.2015, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

¶19

“5. It is submitted by both sides that the issue is covered by the decision in the case of S.Chandrasekaran and others Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By Secretary to the Government, School Education Department and others in W.P.No.25001 of 2012 dated 11.11.2014.

¶20

I have considered in detail about the history of the Selection Grade and Special Grade in the post of Primary School Headmaster by counting their service rendered in the Secondary Grade Teacher Post, if they were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers prior to 01.06.1988. It is relevant to extract Paragraph 60, 62 and 65 of the said judgment.

¶21

“60. Applying the same analogy, the persons who joined as Secondary Grade Teachers before 01.06.1988 is entitled to claim the benefit of counting the service

¶22

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

¶23

of Secondary Grade Teachers for Selection Grade and Special Grade in the post of Primary School Headmaster, if they were promoted as Primary School Headmaster after 01.06.1988, without fixing the cut off date as 31.12.1995.

¶24

It is well settled in a catena of decisions that the State shall not discriminate its employees in granting monetary benefits, if they are similarly situated only on the ground that some did not come to the Court, as such discrimination amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

¶25

For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the proceeding dated 23.07.2010 in Na.Ka.No.2200/C2/2010 of the second respondent is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to extend the benefit of counting the service of Secondary Grade Teacher for grant of Selection Grade and Special Grade in the post of Primary School Headmaster with monetary benefits to the persons who were promoted after 01.06.1988, if those teachers joined prior to 01.06.1988 without reference to the date of promotion as Primary School Headmaster and without driving them to this Court to obtain an order in their favour and also a direction is issued to the respondents to pay the monetary benefits, i.e., arrears of pay to the petitioners, pursuant to the grant of Special Grade in the post of Primary School Headmaster, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶26

In view of the judgment dated 11.11.2014 passed in W.P.No.25001 of 2012, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to grant arrears of pay in respect of pay fixation done under the G.O.Ms.No.207 School Education (G2) Department dated 30.09.2008 to the petitioners. The said exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.”

¶27

6.In the light of the order dated 27.04.2015 passed in W.P.Nos.12584 and 12585 of 2015, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to grant arrears of pay in respect of pay fixation done under the G.O.Ms.No.207 School Education (G2) Department dated 30.09.2008 to the petitioners. The said exercise shall be carried out by the first respondent within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

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

¶29

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1
The Secretary to the Government School
Education Department Fort St. George
Chennai 9
2 The Director of Elementary
Education College Road Chennai 6
3 The District Elementary
Educational Officer Erode District
Erode
4 The Addl. Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer Kangeyam Panchayat
Union Kangeyam Erode District.
+1 cc to Mr.R.Saseetharan,Advocate(sr.28484)
W.P.No.16341 of 2015
And
M.P.No.1 of 2015
bur(co)
cp 29/10/2015

¶31

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

S.Selvaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Selvaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Loganathan Vs The Joint Registrar of

R. Devi Ramamurthy Vs The Director

R.Parthiban Vs The Commissioner of Municipal

M.Govindasamy, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Babu Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Vasantha, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu