Dismissed

M.Manimegalai v. The Joint Director of School

Madras HC6 Oct 2023WP/6076/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition questioning the denial of a 3% incremental benefit, the Court held that transferring a non-teaching employee to a teaching post, even with identical pay scales, is merely a transfer of service and not a promotion. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed benefit, and the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition seeking direction to grant the benefit of one increment and revise pensionary benefits was dismissed with no costs.

M.Manimegalai Vs The Joint Director of School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.6076 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P. No.6076 of 2020

¶7

M.Manimegalai (F/65 years) W/o.K.Gunasekaran 165, M.I.G.Kavuery Vidhi, TNHP Velisenmandalam Cuddalore 607 001.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

/Vs/

¶10

1.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) College Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶11

2.The Principal Accountant General (A and E) 361, Anna Salai, Chennai 18.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to grant the benefit of one increment as per the Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009 and that of the Government Letter No.48211/Pay Cell/2012-1 dated 09.10.2012 and to consequently revise and re-fix the pension and other pensionary benefits forthwith thereto.

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

W.P.No.6076 of 2020

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.T.Chezhian (for R1) Government Advocate

¶19

Ms.Hema (for R2) Muralikrishnan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus

¶22

directing the Respondents to grant the benefit of one increment as per the Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009 and that of the Government Letter No.48211/Pay Cell/2012-1 dated 09.10.2012 and to consequently revise and re-fix the pension and other pensionary benefits forthwith thereto.

¶23

2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner

¶24

was working as Superintendent in the first Respondent's Department and was appointed as PG Teacher on 12.01.2012 and in the same post she retired from service on superannuation on 31.05.2013. The Petitioner's claim is that at the time of posting her as PG Assistant from the post the Superintendent, she is eligible to one increment as per the Government letter No.48211/Pay Cell/2012-1 of Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.6076 of 2020

¶28

09.10.2012. The above rule clarifies that insofar as fixation of pay of

¶29

employees on promotion to a higher post carrying identical scales of pay and grade pay, the person concerned shall be entitled for the benefit of one increment equal to 3% of the sum of pay in the Pay Band and existing Grade Pay shall be computed and rounded off to the next multiple of ten. Since the Petitioner has not been given with the above increment, this Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the Respondents.

¶30

3.Learned Government Advocate submitted that transfer from nonteaching stream to teaching stream is only a transfer of services and it cannot be considered as promotion, even though the person concerned has identical pay scale and hence the learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to 3% increment as claimed by her.

¶31

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides and perused the available records.

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.6076 of 2020

¶35

5.The fact that the Petitioner is a non teaching employee before she

¶36

was appointed as a PG Assistant. The said fact is not denied by the Respondent. The contention of the Petitioner is that she was drawing identical scale of pay while she was on the non-teaching side and hence on her appointment as PG Assistant she should be given with 3% incremental benefit.

¶37

6.The order of appointment of the Petitioner dated 12.01.2012 shows that she has been transferred as PG Assistant from her erstwhile Ministerial Service. Since Ministerial stream and teaching stream are two different channels, person serving in one stream cannot be posted in the other stream, unless it is through selection and appointment by transfer of service. If the Petitioner did not compete in the selection and get herself selected as a PG Assistant, her non teaching stream would have never merged with the teaching stream on promotion at any point of time. In other words, there is no promotion to the post of PG Assistant from any of the post held by the person in the non-teaching stream.

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.6076 of 2020

¶41

7.Hence, the Petitioner cannot claim that her transfer of service from

¶42

non teaching stream to teaching stream is promotion and that she is eligible to get one advance increment. It is obviously because her appointment as P.G.Assistant cannot be construed as promotion on transfer, but it is just an appointment on transfer.

¶43

8.In view of the above said reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶44

No costs.

¶45

06.10.2023

¶46

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

¶47

sai

¶48

¶49

1.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) College Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶50

2.The Principal Accountant General (A and E) 361, Anna Salai, Chennai 18.

¶51

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

¶52

5/6

¶53

W.P.No.6076 of 2020

R.N.MANJULA, J.

sai

W.P. No.6076 of 2020

06.10.2023

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

¶59

6/6

M.Manimegalai v. The Joint Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Manimegalai v. The Joint Director of School

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

K.Lakshmi Vs The Personal Assistant to Collector

S.Vanchi Vs The commissioner

V.Mahendhiran Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

G.Moulin Prasanth Vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel)

T.Manickavelu Vs The Director of School Education

P.Nagarajan Vs Commissioner