Allowed

S.Little Flower, W/o.K.Sahayam v. The State of TamilNadu

Madras HC19 Jun 2023WP/17367/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court analyzed the denial of pay scale benefits to a nursery school teacher compared to a similarly placed colleague who received the benefits. The court found the order discriminatory and allowed the writ petition, setting aside the adverse order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; proceedings in Government Letter (1D) No. 720 dated 22.11.2017 set aside; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

S.Little Flower, W/o.K.Sahayam Vs The State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.17367 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.No. 17367 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.20627 of 2018

S.Little Flower

... Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

Rep. By Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George,

¶12

Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road,

¶14

Chennai – 600 006.

¶15

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil District, Nagercoil.

¶16

4.The Correspondent, Dathie Nursery School, Nagercoil. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Government Letter (1D)No.720, dated 22.11.2017 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

1/7

¶20

W.P.No.17367 of 2018

¶21

allow the pay scale of Secondary Grade Teacher in the place of pay scale of Junior Secondary Grade Teacher from the date of the petitioner original appointment to the post of Nursery Teacher in Dathie Nursery School, Nagercoil.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.Singaravelan, Senior counsel for Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mrs.Meera Arumugam Additional Government Pleader

¶23

For Respondent 4 : No appearance

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Government Letter (1D)No.720, dated 22.11.2017 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to allow the pay scale of Secondary Grade Teacher in the place of pay scale of Junior Secondary Grade Teacher, from the date of the petitioner's original appointment to the post of Nursery Teacher in Dathie Nursery School, Nagercoil.

¶26

The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of

¶27

the writ petition is that she was selected for appointment as a Nursery

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/7

¶30

W.P.No.17367 of 2018

¶31

Teacher which is equivalent to Junior Secondary Grade Teacher, on merit, in Dathi Nursery school at Nagercoil, an aided minority school, recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner joined the post on 22.09.2003. Thereafter, she was converted into a regular pay scale of Junior Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 01.06.2006.

¶32

It is the grievance of the petitioner that she was denied regular pay scale of Secondary Grade Teacher though she was fully qualified to be appointed as a Specialist Teacher in the scale of Secondary Grade Teachers. The petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.42373 of 2016 seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent to allow the pay scale of the Secondary Grade Teacher. The said writ petition came to be ordered on 12.05.2017 with a direction to the 1^st respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 17.07.2015. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent has passed an impugned order which is under challenge the above writ petition.

¶33

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter justifying the impugned order and the reasons assigned for the same. According to the 2^nd respondent, the reliance placed on the G.O.Ms.No.172, School Education Department dated 31.10.2002, by the petitioner would apply only to teachers, who are teaching

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/7

¶36

W.P.No.17367 of 2018

¶37

1^st and 2^nd classes and not teachers who admittedly work in the nursery school at kinder garden level.

¶38

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶39

It is brought to the notice of the Court that in so far as the writ petition No. 42373/2016, two similarly placed teachers approached this Court one being the petitioner and another being Mrs.M.Arulpramila. It is now informed that the other petitioner's case was considered favourably by the 1^st respondent and she has been given all benefits with effect from 01.06.2006, as originally prayed for by her along with the petitioner herein. It is not known as to how when one of the two writ petitioners, who approached this Court has been given benefits and the other be denied the very same benefits especially when both the petitioners were similarly placed.

¶40

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had also filed an additional typed set of papers to establish the fact that the other petitioner in W.P.No.42373 of 2016 has been given all benefits as prayed for by the said

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4/7

W.P.No.17367 of 2018

petitioner herein.

This Court, in the light of the above feels that the respondents are not entitled to differentiate between two persons who are similarly placed. The impugned order is therefore clearly discriminatory and deserves to be set aside on this limited ground itself. The reasons set out in the counter affidavit, if accepted would not justify the benefits being conferred on the other writ petitioner in W.P.No.42373 of 2016 .

¶46

For all the above reasons, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits as prayed for in this writ petition.

¶47

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the proceeding in Government letter dated (1D)No.720, dated 22.11.2017 by the 1^st respondent is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶48

19.06.2023

¶49

Index : Yes / No Speaking/non speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes / No nr

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/7

W.P.No.17367 of 2018

P.B.BALAJI, J.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶57

2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶58

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil District, Nagercoil.

¶59

4.The Correspondent, Dathie Nursery School, Nagercoil.

¶60

W.P.No. 17367 of 2018 and W.N.P.No.20627 of 2018

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6/7

W.P.No.17367 of 2018

19.06.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

7/7

S.Little Flower, W/o.K.Sahayam v. The State of TamilNadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Little Flower, W/o.K.Sahayam 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.Chandrasekaran Vs P.Sethuraman

K.Ramesh, Vs The State Commissioner

Ms.S.Vijayalakshmi Vs the Secretary to Government

V.Balasubramanian Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Smt.P.T.Sarala, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

V.Jotheeswari, Vs Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies