A teacher sought additional charge allowance for officiating as Head Master (in-charge) for about a year. The court held Fundamental Rule 49 permits such allowance only where full additional charge is held; the petitioner held only additional charge, so the rejection was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.17646 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No.17646 of 2015
J.Gopal,
... Petitioner
Vs.
...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
entire records relating to the Impugned Order dated 9.3.2015 passed by the
1st respondent herein in Na.Ka. No.A2/ 019807/2014 and quash the same
and consequential direction to the 1st respondent to pay Additional Allowances to the petitioner for holding the Post of Head Master (In-
Charge) in the 3rd respondent School from 06.01.2011 to 19.12.2011.
1/9
W.P.No.17646 of 2015
For Petitioner : M/s.L. Mouli For Respondents : (for R1 to R3) : M/s.V.Jeevagiridharan, AGP
O R D E R
Challenging the rejection of his request for additional charge
allowance for holding the post of Head Master (in charge) in the 3rd respondent school, the petitioner is before this Court.
Government Tribal Residential High School at Sangarai, Kolli Hiils on 09.02.1999. Thereafter, he was transferred to 2 other schools and ultimately transferred to the 3rd respondent school on 24.03.2010. On 06.01.2011, he was made Headmaster (in charge) of the 3rd respondent school. The petitioner had written a letter to the 2nd respondent requesting him to relieve him from the additional duty as Headmaster (in charge) and on 19.12.2011 he was relieved from the said post. Thereafter, he continued to work as a P.G. Assistant.
2/9
W.P.No.17646 of 2015
a representation to the 2nd respondent to give him additional payment for holding additional charge as Headmaster (in charge). The 2nd respondent had neither sent a reply nor did he make additional payment. The petitioner had sent two other representations on 14.02.2011 and 28.03.2011 but had received no response for the same.
05.10.2012 to the 2nd respondent seeking additional payment for holding additional charge as per Fundamental Rule 49. Once again there was no response, constraining the petitioner to file W.P.No.7397
/2013 before this Court for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider his representation dated 05.10.2012.
direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.10.2012 within a period of 8 weeks. Following the said
3/9
W.P.No.17646 of 2015
order, the petitioner had sent a representation dated 22.09.2013
together with the order passed by this Court. The 2nd respondent even thereafter did not pass orders and ultimately the petitioner had filed a Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.1526 of 2014. After the filing of the Contempt Petition, the 2nd respondent had passed an order dated 04.07.2014 granting the petitioner additional charges allowances. However, on 18.07.2014, the 2nd respondent had passed another order cancelling the order dated 04.07.2014 stating that only the 1st respondent had the power to grant additional charges allowance and requested the 1st respondent to pass necessary orders.
on receiving the 2nd respondent's order dated 18.07.2014 and the petitioner’s representations did not pay the additional charges allowances. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again knocked at the doors of this Court by filing W.P.No.28892/2014 seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to pay additional charges for holding
4/9
W.P.No.17646 of 2015
the post of Headmaster (in charge).
an order directing the 1st respondent to pass orders within a period of 6 weeks. The petitioner had communicated the above order to the 1st respondent. However, despite this communication, there was no compliance with the order. Therefore, the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 05.02.2015 bringing to the notice of the 1st respondent the order of this Court dated 06.11.2014 and stating that if said order was not complied with, the petitioner would have to invoke the contempt jurisdiction. Thereafter, the 1st respondent by the impugned
order dated 09.03.2015 had rejected the request of the petitioner on the following grounds:-
"a. During the academic year 2011-12 the
petitioner had taken only 14 periods instead of 28 periods.
b. During the academic year 2011-12 out of
8 students only 3 students had passed the
Mathematics subject taught by the petitioner.
5/9
W.P.No.17646 of 2015
c. During the tenure of the petitioner only
60% of the students had passed 10th and 12th examination.
d. During the tenure of the petitioner he did
not take any steps to enroll new students to the
school"
Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
remuneration in the light of the Fundamental Rules 49. He has held an additional charge for over a year and therefore he is entitled to the same. This statement has been refuted by the respondents in their counter by contending that Fundamental Rule 49 contemplates payment of additional allowance only when one holds full additional
charge and not for an additional charge. In short, the respondents had reiterated the contents of the impugned order.
under Fundamental Rule 49. Fundamental Rule 49 (1)(ii) & 49 (4)(ii) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/9
W.P.No.17646 of 2015
would read as follows:-
49.(1) (ii) - No additional pay shall be
granted for holding additional charge of current duties of one or more posts."
49.(4) (ii) - (ii) When the posts hold are in
the same office and of the same rank, additional pay shall not be admissible if the duties of the said
additional post are of exactly identical nature and
if the responsibilities are such as can easily be
spread out among others holding the same posts.
order to avail the benefit of the additional pay, the person should hold
full additional charge. In the instant case, the petitioner who is
working as a P.G.Assistant in the 3rd respondent school was only assigned an additional charge for the post of Headmaster from 06.01.2011 to 19.12.2011 and not the full additional charge.
Therefore, the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 09.03.2015 is
very much in order and I see no reason to interfere with the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/9
W.P.No.17646 of 2015
12.07.2024
(shr) Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
3.The Head Master Government Tribal Residential Higher Secondary School, Kunjappanai, The Nilgiris.
8/9
W.P.No.17646 of 2015
P.T. ASHA. J.,
(shr)
W.P.No.17646 of 2015
12.07.2024
9/9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to additional charge allowance under Fundamental Rule 49 for holding charge as Head Master (in-charge) without full additional charge.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
J.Gopal
The Director, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai
The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Udagamandalam, The Nilgiris
The Head Master Government Tribal Residential Higher Secondary School, Kunjappanai, The Nilgiris
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
