Allowed

Nanda Gopalakrishnan, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Feb 2020WP/2899/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, Single Bench, allowed the writ petition relying on a Division Bench order in W.A.No.3904 of 2019. The Court directed that the seniority of petitioners brought from contract to regular service be reckoned from the date of initial appointment, with consequential service benefits, though monetary benefits remain from the regularisation date.

What did the court decide?

Seniority to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment and consequential service benefits extended.

Nanda Gopalakrishnan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :: 10-02-2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.2899 OF 2020

¶6

1.Nanda Gopalakrishnan
2.G.T.Balasubramanian
3.Bathavachalam
4.G.Sundarrajan
5.N.Kalavathi
6.N.Meenakshi
7.R.Kathiravan ... Petitioners
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Higher Secondary Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Villupuram District. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing
the respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the
panel for promotion to the post of Higher Secondary
Headmaster, pursuant to the proceedings of the second
respondent in Na.Ka.No.3720/W1/E1/2019, dated 16.11.2019, and
any date thereafter by counting the services of the
petitioners with effect from the initial dates of appointment
instead of 01.06.2006, by regularising the services of the
petitioners from the initial date of appointment for purposes
of seniority along with consequential service benefits.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy

¶8

For Respondents : Mrs.V.Annalakshmi, Government Advocate.

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The issue that is involved in this Writ Petition is that the petitioners were originally appointed as Teachers on Consolidated basis and, subsequently, they were brought on regular time scale of pay. However, their seniority was reckoned only from the date of regularisation and not from the date of initial appointment.

¶12

The above issue became the subject matter of challenge in several Writ Petitions and aggrieved by the orders passed by a learned Single Judge in one of the said Writ Petitions, an appeal came to be filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, whereupon, the Hon'ble First Bench, in W.A.No.3904 of 2019, after considering the submissions made on either side, on 13.01.2020, was pleased to pass the following order :

¶13

''4. The learned counsel for the appellants/State submits that the promotion can only be from the date of regularisation and not from any date anterior to the date of regularisation. However, the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners points out the specific admission that has been made by the appellants/State , in para 15 of the grounds of appeal, which reads as under :

¶14

“ 15.The Learned Judge Justice ought to have considered that with regard to promotion of the respondents herein, among those Secondary Grade Teacher/B.T.Assistant/P.G.Teachers brought into regular time scale with effect from 01.06.2006 vide G.O.Ms.No.99, School Education Department, dated 27.06.2006, the date of initial appointments under contract basis is taken into account already and no injustice caused to them.”

¶15

In view of the statement made in para 15 of the grounds of appeal read with G.O.Ms.No.120, dated 18.07.2006, it is clear that the Government itself had agreed to grant the benefits of seniority from the date of initial appointment and all monetary benefits from the date of regularisation, which is from 01.06.2006.

¶16

The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, directing the appellants herein to regularise the services of the respondents/writ petitioners from the date of entry into service for the purpose of seniority and extend all

¶17

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

¶18

monetary benefits following thereof. The learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners concedes that the portion of the order which directs payment of monetary benefits from the date of appointment may be deleted. The learned counsel agrees that the seniority of the writ petitioners be reckoned from the date of initial appointment and monetary benefits be given from the date of regularisation, i.e., from 01.06.2006.

¶19

In view of the submissions made, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part to the extent mentioned above. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.24538 of 2019 is closed.''

¶20

Therefore, the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court, referred to supra, wherein, the Division Bench has directed the seniority of the petitioners therein to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment and the monetary benefits to be given from the date of regularisation.

¶21

Following the above Division Bench decision of this Court, this Writ Petition is disposed of in similar terms, extending the same relief to the petitioners herein as well. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.3356 of 2020 is closed.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dixit
To
1. The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Secondary Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Villupuram District.

¶23

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

¶24

+1cc to Mr.Dakshayani Reddy, Advocate SR.No.10550

¶25

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.10871

¶26

W.P.No.2899 OF 2020

¶27

SR(CO) GMY(16/03/2020)

¶28

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

Nanda Gopalakrishnan, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanda Gopalakrishnan, v. State 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

A.Veerannan, Vs The Managing Director

A.Kadhar Batch Khan, Vs The Commissioner

P.Kamalakannan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.Murugan Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

E.Nandakumar Vs The Secretary

S.Vanithakumari Vs The Secretary to Government