Disposed

K.R.Shyla v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC28 Sept 2015WP/30470/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Six teachers filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking inclusion of their service rendered from initial appointment until regularisation for seniority and pension purposes. The Division Bench directed the Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, to consider the pending representation on merits and dispose of it within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 20.10.2014 on merits and pass orders within eight weeks.

K.R.Shyla Vs Government of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.09.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

W.P.No.30470/2015

¶6

1.K.R.Shyla
2.V.Margret Roseline
3.J.Desingh
4.P.Jude Lourdunathan
5.R.Radhakrishnan
6.K.Indra .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The Secretary
Government of Tamilnadu
School Education Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
O/o.The Directorate of School Education,
DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Joint Director of Vocational Instructors
O/o.The Directorate of Vocational Instructors,
DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006.
4.The Accountant General, [A&E]
O/o.The Principal Accountant General
Tamilnadu, Chennai 600018. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to include the service rendered by the petitioner from initial appointment till regularisation for seniority and pension purpose.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.Venkataswamybabu For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.N.Srinivasan Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.V.Vijayshankar

¶9

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Following are the service details of the petitioners:-

¶11

[a] The 1^st petitioner possessed M.Com., B.Ed., and worked in the Government Higher Secondary School, Erumad, Nilgiris District and is to retire from service on 31.05.2017.

¶12

[b] The 2^nd petitioner possessed M.Com., B.Ed., and worked in St Marys Girls Higher Secondary School, Kothagiri, Nilgiris District and is to retire from service on 30.04.2023.

¶13

[c] The 3^rd petitioner possesses the qualification of M.Com., M.Ed., and working in the Government Higher Secondary School, Thummanatty, Nilgiris, and will retire from service on 31.05.2022.

¶14

[d] The 4^th petitioner possesses M.Com., M.Ed., and working in the Sivasilam Chamraj Higher Secondary School, Chamraj Estate, Nilgiris and will retire from service on 30.05.2018.

¶15

[e]The 5^th petitioner possesses M.Com., B.Ed., and working in the Government Higher Secondary School, Ooty and will retire from service on 31.12.2021.

¶16

[f]The 6^th petitioner possesses B.Sc., B.Ed., and working in Government Higher Secondary School, Pandhalur, Nilgiris and will retire from service on 31.05.2021.

¶17

3 The grievance expressed by the petitioners is that they have handled not less than 28 periods per week which is the workload prescribed by the Government for all the teachers and that the time scale of pay has been granted to the Vocational Teachers as per G.O.Ms.712 dated 28.05.1990 ; G.O.Ms.No.967 dated 16.10.1992, G.O.Ms.No.834 dated 23.09.1994 ; G.O.Ms.No.358 dated 18.08.1997 ; G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 12.02.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 10.06.2002.

¶18

4 It is further stated that though the petitioners were brought under the time scale of pay, the part-time services rendered by them and the classes handled for the Higher Secondary Course, have not been taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating full pensionary benefits. In this regard, the petitioners submitted representation dated 20.10.2014 and since no orders have been passed, they came forward to file this writ petition.

¶19

5 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the Judgment dated 16.03.2015 made in WA.No.359/2015 wherein the Division Bench of this Court, has upheld the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.4408/2014 and it is relevant to extract the same:“13.The learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion as under and granted the aforestated benefits:-

¶20

4[c].The workload not less than 20 periods in a week is a whole time employment for a day. In fact, such appointment is Full Time Appointment, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ but the Government of Tamilnadu with a view to deny

¶21

the benefits of Full Time Employment, designated the Vocational Instructors as Doubt Part Time Vocational Instructor. The Government of Tamil Naud, in order to deny regular salary and permanent statue to the Part Time Vocational Instructors, has introduced the system of Double Part Time teacher. As per the sid system, though Vocational Inspection has taken classes in the morning and evening, he will be treated as Double Part Time Vocational Instructor and not Full Time Vocational Instructor. The petitioner worked for a whole day, i.e., forenoon as well as in afternoon. But, he was designated as Double Part Time Vocational Instructor instead of Full Time employee. After prolonged correspondence, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued G.O.Ms.712 dated 28.05.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.834 dated 23.09.1994, G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 15.07.1999 to regularise the service of the Vocational Instructor.”

¶22

14.Thus the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or irregularity warranting interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶23

6 This Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, directs the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 20.10.2014 on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioners.

¶24

7 The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

To
1.The Secretary
Government of Tamilnadu
School Education Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
O/o.The Directorate of School Education,
DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Joint Director of Vocational Instructors
O/o.The Directorate of Vocational Instructors,
DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006.
4.The Accountant General, [A&E]
O/o.The Principal Accountant General
Tamilnadu, Chennai 600018.
+ 1 cc to Mr.Venkataswamy Babu, Advocate Sr.52475
+ 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.52932
W.P.No.30470/2015
KU(CO)
EU 09.10.15

¶30

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

K.R.Shyla v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Shyla v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs The Chairman

M.Dhanapal Vs The Director of Agriculture

Y.Ravikumar Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

V.Veeriah, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

D.Devan Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

N.Mallika Vs Government of Tamilnadu