Allowed

P.Freddy v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Oct 2021WP/27046/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench quashed G.O.Ms.No.834 to the extent it deprived double part-time instructors of vested rights under G.O.Ms.No.712. This single Judge allowed similar petitions, holding fully qualified instructors entitled to actual payment of dues and BT scale from their appointment dates based on the Division Bench's decision.

What did the court decide?

Directions to compute and pay actual benefits due under G.O.No.712 read with G.O.No.39 of 1999 within six weeks.

P.Freddy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 05.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P. Nos.27046 to 27052 of 2008 and M.P. Nos.2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 & 2 of 2008 W.P. No.27046 of 2008

¶6

P.Freddy	... Petitioner	in WP.27046/2008
N.Santhi	... Petitioner	in WP.27047/2008
A.Prayera	... Petitioner	in WP.27048/2008
R.Mathivanan	... Petitioner	in WP.27049/2008
P.Janet Pusba Latha	... Petitioner	in WP.27050/2008
R.Wisy Beaula	... Petitioner	in WP.27051/2008
R.S. Geetha	.. Petitioner i Vs.	n WP.27052/2008

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

¶8

2.The Joint Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.

¶9

The Chief Educational officer, Nagecoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶10

4.The District Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

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

¶12

5.The Correspondent, St.Aloysins Higher Secondary School, Marthandam Thurai, Kollemcode P.O, Kanyakumari District. 6. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents 1 to 6 in WP.27046/2008 and Respondents 1 to 4 in WP 27047/2008, 27048, 27049, 27050, 27051, and 27052/2008 7 The Headmaster KDVP Girls Govt Higher Secondary School, Kottar Nagarcoil, KanyakumariDistrict. ...5^th Respondent in WP.27047/2008 and 27051/2008 8 The Headmaster Government High School Arumanai, Kanuakumari District. ...5^th Respondent in WP.27048/2008 9 The Headmaster Govt. Higher Secondary School Bhuthapandy 629 852 Kanyakumari District ...5^th Respondent in WP.27049/2008 and 27051/2008 10 The Headmaster Govt. Higher Secondary School Kulasekaram, Kanyakumari District. ...5^th Respondent in WP.27050/2008

¶13

Prayer in WP.27046/2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2^nd Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.5046/VI/E1/2003-02 dated 22.5.2007 and the consequential order of the 6^th Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.23204/01/E3/2007 dated 26.3.2008 and quash the same in so far as it relates to granting the Petitioner only notional fixation of pay for the period from 28.09.1994 to 08.07.2004 and consequently direct the respondents to pay part-time salary to the Petitioner from the date of his appointment and payment of B.T. Scale to the Petitioner from 23.09.1994 as Vocational Instructor at the 5^th Respondent School.

¶14

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

¶15

Common Prayer in WP.Nos.27047/2008; 27048/2008; 27049/2008; 27050/2008; 27051/2008 and 27052/2008

¶16

Petition Praying to writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 5046/V1/E1/003-02, dated 14.12.2007 and quash the same in so far as it relates to granting the petitioner only notional fixation of pay for the period from 28.09.1994 to 08.07.2004 and consequently direct the respondents to pay part time salary to the petitioner from the date of his appointment and payment of B.T. scale to the petitioner from 23.09.1994 as vocational Instructor at the 5th respondent school respectively.

¶17

For Petitioner : Ms.Mahalakshmi in all WPs

¶18

For Respondent : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Government Advocate for R1 to R4 & R6 in W.P. No.27046 of 2008 & No appearance for R8 for R1 to R4

¶19

In W.P. Nos.27047 to 27052 of 2008 No Appearance for R5 In W.P. Nos.27046 to 27052 of 2008

¶20

COMMON ORDER

¶21

The seven petitioners before me challenge proceedings dated 22.05.2007 passed by the Joint Director of School Education/R2 and consequential order of the 6^th respondent i.e. Director of School Education/R6 insofar as they have been granted only notional fixation of pay for the period from 28.09.1994 to 08.07.2004 without actual consequential benefit thereof. They seek a direction to the respondents to pay part time salary to the petitioners from the date of their appointment and payment of B.T. scale to the petitioners from 23.09.1994 as vocational instructors in the St. Aloysins Higher Secondary School/R5.

¶22

2.G.O.Ms.No.1719 dated 14.09.1978 had been issued by the State/R1 setting out qualifications for appointments of vocational instructors in Government Higher Secondary Schools. Vide G.O.Ms.No.974 Education Department, dated 23.09.1985, R5 School had been sanctioned two posts of part-time vocational teacher on permanent basis. G.O.Ms.No.712, Education, dated 28.05.1990 had thereafter been issued under which 800 fully qualified double part time vocational instructors, including the seven petitioners before me were appointed under regular scale of pay. G.O.Ms.No.967, Education, dated 16.10.1992 brought 587 fully qualified double part time vocational instructors into regular scales of pay.

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioners sought and were appointed as fully qualified vocational Instructors on 17.07.1989 (WP.No.27046 of 2008), 28.07.1986 (WP.No.27047 of 2008), 04.08.1986 (WP.No.27048 of 2008), 31.10.1988 (WP.No.27049 of 2008), 21.07.1986 (WP.No.27050 of 2008), 26.10.1988 (WP.No.27051 of 2008) and 22.07.1989 (WP.No.27052 of 2008). Admittedly, the petitioners have all been appointed prior to July 1989.

¶25

Sanction was however accorded to the petitioners only subsequently on various dates i.e. 02.09.1993 (WP.Nos.27046, 27047, 27048, 27050 & 27051 of 2008) and 10.08.1993 (WP.Nos.27049 & 27052 of 2008), with retrospective effect from 17.07.1989 (WP.No.27046 of 2008), 28.07.1986 (WP.No.27047 of 2008), 04.08.1986 (WP.No.27048 of 2008), 31.10.1988 (WP.No.27049 of 2008), 21.07.1986 (WP.No.27050 of 2008), 22.07.1989 (WP.No.27051 of 2008), 10.08.1993 (WP.No.27052 of 2008) as single part time vocational instructor. Notwithstanding the retrospective sanction accorded to the petitioners’ appointments, there was no approval granted by the Department.

¶26

On account of the delay in according approval to these appointments, several vocational Instructors had filed O.A.No.3280 of 1982 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) challenging the non-grant of approval by the State to their appointments. The Tribunal, by order dated 18.06.1993 held that the proper basis for regularisation should be the date of their appointments as instructors, notwithstanding whether a single parttime instructor had been converted to double part-time instructor, or whether the candidate had been appointed as a double part-time instructor even to begin with. The Government was directed to revisit the policy, giving due regard to seniority. In the meanwhile orders passed in G.O.Nos.712 and 967 stood suspended.

¶27

G.O.Ms.No.712 and 967 came to be set aside and thus all appointments under G.O.712 and 967 were treated as part-time instructors entitled to a lumpsum remuneration, such entitlement flowing from the date of orders of the Tribunal i.e. 18.06.1993 and 17.12.1993. As a consequence of the order of the Tribunal, G.O.Ms.No.834 dated 23.09.1994 came to be passed.

¶28

G.O. No.273 Education, Science and Technology (HS), dated 07.04.1994 thereafter converted the appointments of the aforesaid 1387 vocational instructors to double part-time instructors with consolidated pay per mensem, the posts to continue upto 30.09.1994. The petitioners’ appointments were under G.O.Ms.No.712 and with the setting aside of the said G.O. by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, the terms governing the petitioners appointment would be as per G.O.Ms.No.273 ordering consolidated pay.

¶29

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

¶30

Thereafter, the 1387 employees were absorbed in posts on regular time scale of pay with effect from the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.834 for a period upto 30.06.1995. The posts were to be filled up by fully qualified, part-time teachers based on their seniority irrespective of whether they were working as double or single part time instructors. Fully qualified double part time instructors, who had been brought into regular scale of pay by virtue of G.O.Ms.Nos.712 and 967 and who became ineligible by view of the orders issued under G.O.Ms.No.834 stipulating seniority, were to be granted protection of pay from the date when their juniors were paid in regular time scale of pay.

¶31

Fully qualified single part-time instructors with seniority were to be brought under regular scale of pay with reference to the date of drawl of pay in regular time scale by their juniors. Remaining fully qualified instructors were to be absorbed in existing vacant posts in secondary grade scale of pay and appointed as vocational instructors in B.T. scale of pay as and when posts became available under the centrally sponsored scheme of vocational education.

¶32

G.O.834 came to be challenged in WP.No.11389 of 2003 and batch and the petitioners were not among those who challenged the G.O. After narrating the entire history of the matter, at paragraph13, the Bench notes that there had been other, similar challenges to G.O.Ms.No.834 before the Tribunal as well as High Court. The writ petitions filed came to be disposed by the Division Bench by observing that it was open to the petitioners to implead themselves in the proceedings pending before the Tribunal in relation to G.O.Ms.Nos.712 and 967. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioners were granted the benefit of pay scale which they had enjoyed till such time and a stay of recovery of arrears as directed under G.O.Ms.No.834.

¶33

Ultimately, G.O.Ms.No.834 came to be quashed by this Court to the extent that it took away the vested right of regularisation already conferred upon double part-time instructors as per G.O.Ms.Nos.712 and 967 of 1990 and 1992 respectively. The operative portion of the decision of the Division Bench is as follows:

¶34

The main grievance in all the O.As was that there was no rational in discriminating the single part time teachers compared to double part time teachers and it was only highlighted in O.A.No.1999 of 1993 that even unqualified double part-time teachers had been given preference vis-a-vis qualified single part time teachers, which was arbitrary and discriminatory. In none of the O.As, there was a prayer to quash either G.O.Ms.No.712 dated 28.5.1990 or G.O.Ms.No.967 dated 16.10.1992. On

¶35

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

¶36

the other hand the main contention was to the effect that single part time instructors, whether qualified or un-qualified, should not have been ignored from the purview of regularisation and they should have been treated alike with the double part time instructors.

¶37

The Government under the pretext of giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in those cases have purported to take away the rights already conferred on the petitioners and other vocational instructors who had been regularised. Apart from the fact that the Tribunal had not specifically set aside the G.O.Ms.No.712, the fact that the beneficiaries under G.O.Ms.No.712 had already been regularised were not before the Tribunal and the right which was already vested in them could not have been taken away by such decision. As a matter of fact, in our opinion, the Tribunal had never indicated to take away such vested right. On the other hand it only emphasised that single part time teachers should be treated on the same footing. It is evident that the order of the Tribunal has been misinterpreted by the Government resulting in taking away the vested right of the petitioners.

¶38

It is not disputed that by virtue of the said orders passed by the High Court in several cases, the vocational teachers continue to enjoy the benefits of their regularisation as per G.O.Ms.No.712 and G.O.Ms.No.967. Subsequently, the single part time teachers have been regularised. In the guise of giving effect to the orders of the Tribunal, the respondents have deprived the petitioners of their vested right even though such petitioners were not parties before the Tribunal and had not been heard either by the Tribunal or by the Government. As a matter of fact, the present impugned order has the effect of terminating the services of the persons who had already been regularised and of course reappointing them on a subsequent date.

¶39

The basic concept highlighted in the orders of the Tribunal to the effect that single part time teachers and double part time teachers should be treated equally cannot be faulted. However, since double part time teachers had already been regularised and conferred a benefit, in the absence of a specific direction by the Tribunal, such benefit should not have been taken away by the Government. On

¶40

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

¶41

the other hand, the Government should have made endeavour to confer similar benefits on the single part time teachers.

¶42

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel interest of justice would be served by issuing the following directions :-

¶43

(1) The impugned G.O.Ms.No.834 Education Science and Technology (HS.II) Department dated 23.9.1994 is quashed to the extent and so far as it takes away the vested right of regularisation already conferred on the Double Part-time Instructors as per G.O.Ms.Nos.712 of 1990 and 967 of 1992.

¶44

(2) Such Double Part-time Instructors, who were regularised pursuant to the aforesaid G.O.Ms.Nos.712 of 1990 and 967 of 1992, shall continue to enjoy the status they had acquired, including the regular increments as per their original date of regularisation.

¶45

(3) Single Part-time Instructors, who were otherwise qualified, shall be deemed to have been regularised with effect from the date on which any Double Part-time Instructors junior to them had been regularised and their seniority and length of service would be treated as such from the deemed date of regularisation for all purposes.

¶46

(4) All such double part time instructors and single part time instructors, who are deemed to have been regularised, as per the directions contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be entitled to the benefit of notional increment in the regular scale of pay applicable to them from the deemed date of their regularisation. However, no amount shall be paid towards such notional increment.

¶47

(5) No recovery shall be made from any of the double part time teachers or single part time teachers. While realigning the seniority of the single part time teachers vis-a-vis double part time teachers, there shall not be any reduction in scale of pay already drawn by the double part time teachers and no recovery shall be made.

¶48

With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the

¶49

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

¶50

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶51

The petitioners before me rely greatly on the directions that had been issued at paragraph-22 quashing G.O.No.834 to the extent that it takes away the vested right of regularisation already conferred upon those double part-time instructors covered by G.O.No.712. This argument merits acceptance in light of the categoric directions of the Division Bench. The defence put up by the respondents in counter dated 17.10.2009 is based upon G.O.Ms.No.69 Education, dated 20.02.2007. The aforesaid G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms.No.69 is a consequence of the decision of the Division Bench, but refers to a different class of employees, those who were not fully qualified as on date of their appointment. In the present case, the petitioners were fully qualified as on the dates of their appointments on various dates prior to 1989. G.O.Ms.No.69 is thus inapplicable to the petitioners.

¶52

One question that arises is as to whether the petitioners can be permitted to take the benefit of G.O.No.712, notwithstanding that the same was set aside by the Tribunal. I believe so, since, G.O.Ms.No.834, to the extent to which it takes away the vested right of regularisation conferred on double part time instructors as per G.O.No.712 of 1990, stood quashed. Thus, the clock was put back and the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.712 of 1990 stand restored to the petitioners.

¶53

No doubt, the petitioners have not challenged G.O.No.834 either before the Tribunal or this Court and the Division Bench also records the continued entitlement to the benefits of regularisation, granted in the case of all those employees who have approached the Court and the Tribunal.

¶54

Thus, the fact that the petitioners have not challenged G.O.No.834 would, in my considered view, not be fatal to the case of the petitioners. Firstly, the decision of the Division Bench must be read to have been rendered in rem, benefitting all those candidates/employees, entitled to the benefits of G.O.No.712. With the setting aside of G.O.No.834 to the extent to which it snatched away the benefits granted by G.O.No.712, all those fully qualified instructors who had drawn benefits under G.O.No.712 will be restored such benefits.

¶55

Secondly, G.O.No.39 dated 12.02.1999, comes to the rescue of the petitioners, stating at paragraph-4, as follows:

¶56

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

¶57

4/ gFjpneu bjhHpw;fy;tp MrphpaUf;fhf gzpeyidf; fUj;jpy; bfhz;L gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; fUj;JUf;fis muR ed;F ghprPyid bra;J fPH;fz;lthW MizapLfpwJ:?

¶58

(1) 16/7/90?f;F Kd;ng epakdk; bra;ag;gl;L. Murhid (epiy) vz;/634. fy;tp. ehs; 23/9/94y; KGneu Mrphpah;fshf;fg;gl;l KGf; fy;tpj; jFjp bgw;wth;fSf;F ,izahd vy;yhj; jFjpfSk; bgw;wpUe;Jk; 23/9/94 tiu epakd xg;g[jy; bgwhky; eph;thff; fhuz';fshy; jhkjkhf epakd xg;g[jy; bgw;wjhy; kl;Lk; KGneu Mrphpah;fshf;fg;glhj 73 egh;fis bghWj;jtiuapy; mth;fs; 16/7/90?f;F Kd;dnu epakdk; bra;ag;gl;lth;fs;jhdh vd;gija[k; mth;fSf;F epakd xg;g[jy; jhkjkhf tH';fg;gl;lJ eph;thff; fhuz';fshy;jhd; vd;gija[k; gs;spf; fy;tp , af;Feh; Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; cWjp bra;J bf;zlgpd; murhid (epiy) vz;/834. fy;tp ehs; 23/9/94y; Twg;gl;Ls;s epge;jidfSf;Fl;gl;L murhid (epiy) vz;/834. fy;tp ehs; 23/9/94 btspaplg;gl;l ehs; my;yJ ,th;fs; epakd xg;g[jy; bgw;w ehs; ,jpy; vJ gpe;jpanjh me;j ehs; Kjy; KGneu Mrphpah;fshf khw;wp muR MizapLfpwJ/ ,e;j 73 egh;fSk; gzpepakdk; bgw;wpUe;jhy; ,th;fis xj;j Vida gFjpneu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fSf;F murhid (epiy) vz;/834. fy;tp. Ehs; 23/9/94y; tH';fg;gl;Ls;s g[jpa tpjkhd mjhtJ gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; epiy Mfpa tpfpjk; jhd; mikf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ vd;Wk; gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; gzpaplk; njitahd mst[ fhspahf ,y;yhj epiyapYk; kdpjhgpkhd mog;gilapy; jhd; nkw;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s 73 egh;fisa[k; KGneu Mrphpah;fshf khw;Wtjw;F Kot[ vLj;Js;s epiyapy; efuhl;rp gs;spfspy; Vw;fdnt epug;gg;glhky; fhypahf cs;s 485 ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpapl';fis ,J Fwpj;jhd Kd;epfH;t[ mog;gilapy; (mjhtJ murhid (epiy) vz;/358. fy;tp. ehs; 18/8/97y; btspapl;Ls;sijg; nghd;W) gad;gLj;jpf; bfhs;s///// KGneu Mrphpah;fshf khw;wg;gltpUf;Fk; nkw;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s 73 egh;fisa[k; bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fs; epiy?II vdg; bgahpl;L mth;fSf;F ,ilepiy Mrphpah; rk;gs tpfpjk; mspf;ft[k; muR MizapLfpwJ/

¶59

(11) 16/7/90?f;F Kd;g[ epakdk; bra;ag;gl;L eph;thf fhuz';fpdhy;. 23/9/94?f;F gpwF epakdk; xg;g[jy; bgw;w KGf;fy;tp jFjp bgwhj 31 gFjpneu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fs; jtWjyhf Fwfpa fhy gapw;rpf;F mDg;gg;gl;L njh;r;rpa[k; bgw;Wtpl;ldh;/ murhid (epiy) vz;/358 gs;spf; fy;tp. ehs; 18/8/97?y; tH';fg;gl;Ls;s 636 gzpapl';fspy; ,th;fSk; ml';Fth;/ vd;Wk; murhid (epiy) vz;/358 gs;spf; fy;tp. ehs; 18/8/97y; KGneu Mrpah;fshf khw;wg;gl 23/9/94?f;F Kd;dh; epakdk; xg;g[jy; bgwg;gl;oUf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epge;jidapdhy; nkw;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s 31 gFjpneu bjhHpy; fy;tp Mrphpah;fSk; FWfpa fhy gapw;rp Koj;J njh;t[ njh;r;rp ngw;Wk;. KGneu Mrphpah;fshf khw;wg;gl ,ayhj epiyapy; cs;sdh;/ nkw;Fwp;g;gpl;Ls;s 31 egh;fSk; 16/7/90?f;F Kd;dh; epakdk; bgw;wth;fs; kw;Wk; eph;thf fhuz';fspdhy; jhd; ,th;fsJ epakdk; xg;g[jy; bgwhky; ,Ue;jJ vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhYk; 16/7/90?f;F Kd;g[ epakdk; bra;ag;gl;L eph;thff;f fhuz';fshy; epakd xg;g[jy; jhkjkhf bgw;w midtUf;Fk; KGneu gzpapl';fs; tH';f muR KobtLj;jpUg;gjhYk;. Kdpjhgpkhd mog;gilapy; rpwg;g[ epfH;thf nkw;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s 31 egh;fspd; epakd';fSk; mit 16/7/90?f;F Kd;dh; bra;ag;gl;l epakd';fs; kw;Wk; , e;epakd';fSf;F eph;thf fhuz';fspdhy; jhd; 23/9/94?f;F Kd;dh; xg;g[jy; mspf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;gjid gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; cWjp bra;J bfhz;L. ,th;fis bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fs; epiy? II vd mjw;fhd ,ilepiy Mrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; KGneu Mrphpah;fshf murhiz (epiy) vz;/358. gs;spf; fy;tp. ehs; 18/8/92?y; mikf;fg;gl;lg; gzpapl';fspy; filrp njh;t[ ehSf;F mLj;j ehs; Kjy; khw;w gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;FeUf;F muR mDkjp tH';FfpwJ/

¶60

(111) murhid (epiy) vz;/834. fy;tp. ehs; 23/9/94 gj;jp 4(v)y; 16/10/92?k; ehs; tiu KGf; fy;tpj; jFjp bgw;w gFjpneu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fis KGneu Mrphpah;fshf khw;w mDkjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy; 16/10/92 Kjy; 23/9/94 tiu KGf; fy;tp jFjpapy; bgw;w gFjpneu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fis KGneu Mrphpah;fshf khw;w mt;turhidapy; ,lkpy;iy/ 16/10/92 Kjy; 23/9/94 tiuapshd ,ilg;gl;l fhyj;jpy; KG fy;tp jFjp bgw;Ws;s 16/7/90?f;F Kd;dh; epakdk; bgw;Ws;s 19 gFjpneu bjhHpy; fy;tp Mrphpah;fis. mth;fs; 16/7/90?f;F Kd;dh; epakdk;

¶61

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

¶62

bgw;Ws;sdh; vd;fpd;w fhuzj;jpdhy; kdpjhgpkhd mog;gilapy; efuhl;rp gs;spfspy; fhypahf cs;s 485 cghp ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpapl';fspy; 19 gzpapl';fis ,th;fis KGneu Mrphpah;fshf khw;Wtjw;fhf rud; bra;J ,th;fis bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fs; epiy?II vd mjw;fhd ,ilepiy Mrphpah; g[jpa tpfpjj;jpy; KGneu Mrphpah;fshf murhid (epiy) vz;/834. fy;tp. ehs; 23/9/94d; btspapl;L ehshd 23/9/94 Kjy; khw;wt[k; muR MizapLfpwJ/'

¶63

Six out of the seven present petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.5491 to 5496 of 2007, (barring the petitioner in WP.No.27046 of 2008) praying for a mandamus directing R2 to pay them B.T. scale of pay from 23.09.1994 instead of 10.06.2002 and also part time salary from 28.07.1986 to 22.09.1994. Since their representations to the aforesaid effect had been pending before the authorities, the Court closed the writ petition directing R2 to pass orders on the representations on merits within a fixed time frame. Consequent thereupon, the impugned order has come to be passed wherein while granting the petitioner the benefit claimed notionally for the period 28.09.1994 to 08.07.2004, there has been no actual pay out of the benefits.

¶64

It is not in dispute that the petitioners hold the requisite qualifications as vocational instructors. Furthermore, the Division Bench of this Court by its decision dated 24.06.2004 has also categorically stated that those double part-time instructors regularised under G.O.No.712 of 1990 shall continue to enjoy the status that they had required including emoluments as per their original dates of regularisation.

¶65

As a consequence, the petitioners must be entitled to the benefits sought for by them, not just notionally but actually, and from the dates of their respective appointments.

¶66

These writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned orders. The respondents shall compute the benefits due to the petitioners in terms of G.O.No.712 read with G.O.No.39 of 1999 and pay over the same within a period of six (6) weeks from today. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

-sd/-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶72

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

¶73

To 1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9. 2.The Joint Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6. 3. The Chief Educational officer, Nagecoil, Kanyakumari District. 4.The District Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 5. The Headmaster KDVP Girls Govt Higher Secondary School, Kottar Nagarcoil, KanyakumariDistrict. 6. The Headmaster Government High School Arumanai, Kanuakumari District. 7. The Headmaster Govt. Higher Secondary School Bhuthapandy 629 852 Kanyakumari District 8. The Headmaster Govt. Higher Secondary School Kulasekaram, Kanyakumari District. 9. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. +2 C.C. To MRS.P.MAHALAKSHMI, Advocate SR.NO. 52652/2021 +1 C.C. To GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, SR.NO. 52816/2021 W.P. Nos.27046 to 27052 of 2008 and M.P. Nos.2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 & 2 of 2008 W.P. No.27046 of 2008

¶74

SSI(CO) TP (21/10/2021)

¶75

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

P.Freddy v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Freddy v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Nedunchezian Vs the Deputy Inspector General

Dr. M.G.Krishna Baba Mds, Vs the Director of Medical

Mr.S.Joseph Jeyasingh, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G Johnsi Christobel Vs C.Poornachandran

N.Anbarasu, Vs State of Tamilnadu

P. Samyanathan Vs the District Collector