Allowed

R.Marappan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC24 Jun 2024WP/2357/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting higher pay scales. The court held that the respondents, having failed to implement Tribunal orders, could not contest them via a new Delhi High Court precedent. The court directed implementation of the Tribunal's orders regarding pay protection.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned order rejecting the request was quashed; respondents directed to implement Administrative Tribunal orders regarding pay scales and arrears.

R.Marappan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.2036 of 2016

R.Marappan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

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

¶14

3.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶15

4.The Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶16

5.The Chief Educational Officer, Karur District, Karur. ... Respondents

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 10

¶19

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 4^th respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.6497/A2/2002 dated 20.09.2006 and quash the same and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to extend the benefits of the G.O.(4D) No.10 School Education (D2) Department dated 09.03.2012 and G.O.(2D) No.70 School Education (Nee.Va.3 (2) Department dated 12.11.2014 and treat the petitioner as B.Ed.Middle School Headmaster and grant higher scale of pay from 01.06.1988 with selection and special grade scales of pay and to grant consequential arrears as well as pension to the petitioner.

¶21

For petitioner : Mr.R.Saseetharan For respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari, Government Advocate

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The writ petitioner was appointed as B.Ed. Middle School

¶24

Headmaster at the Panchayat Union Middle School, Kuppandanpalayam. Thereafter, the school was upgraded as a Government High School from that of Panchayat Union Middle

¶25

Page 2 of 10

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

¶28

School. Therefore, the petitioner was absorbed as B.T.Assistant from the post of B.Ed. Middle School Headmaster at Government High School, Kuppandanpalayam, with effect from 12.08.1983. The petitioner was, thereafter, promoted as Headmaster in the High School at Karur District where superannuated on 31.07.2005.

¶29

The petitioner would submit that the Government had ordered higher scale of pay for the post of B.Ed. Middle School Headmasters. In view of the absorption and in view of revision of pay with effect from 01.06.1988 as per the recommendations of the V Pay Commission, the B.Ed. Middle School Headmasters who were absorbed as B.T.Assistants in the High Schools lost their higher scale of pay. Consequently, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued instructions in Letter dated 15.06.1988 to the effect that on upgradation of Middle Schools into that of Government High Schools and on absorption of the teachers and non-teaching staff in the Government High Schools, their scale of pay should not be

¶30

Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

¶32

reduced and that the post of B.Ed. Middle School Headmaster on such absorption should not be renamed.

¶33

Thereafter, the Director of School Education, by his

¶34

proceedings dated 13.12.1991, had communicated that the absorbed B.Ed. Middle School Headmasters would be entitled to Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay in the post of B.Ed. Middle School Headmaster. Several applications had been filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by the B.T.Assistants to have their pay protected as B.Ed.Middle School Headmaster. The Administrative Tribunal had passed an order that in view of the revision of higher scale of pay to the post of B.Ed. Middle School Headmaster by reason of the V Pay Commission, the B.Ed. Middle School Headmasters who were absorbed as B.T.Assistants were entitled to the higher scale of pay.

¶35

Recognizing the fact that it is difficult for the

¶36

Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

¶38

Government to accommodate all the Middle School Headmasters who were working as B.T.Assistants, the Administrative Tribunal had ordered that those absorbed B.Ed. Middle School Headmasters shall be given the same benefit as if they continued as Headmasters and consequential monetary benefits such as Selection Grade and Special Grade, including increments, till their retirement. None of these orders had been challenged by the respondents.

¶39

However, the respondents failed to implement the said orders. The repeated reminders also did not yield the desired result. After the aforesaid orders were passed, this Court had also passed an order directing the respondents to implement the orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal. However, the same has not been done. The writ petitioner's request had been rejected by the Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal, Namakkal District, by the impugned order dated 20.09.2006. Therefore, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶40

Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

¶42

The respondents have not seriously contested the fact

¶43

that the earlier orders of this Court and the Government Orders have not been complied with by them. The respondents would seek

¶44

to submit that since the post of Primary School Headmasters and Middle School Headmasters carry different scales of pay and different educational qualifications were prescribed for the two posts, counting of one service into another service is against all canons of law and therefore, they sought to have the petition dismissed.

¶45

Admittedly, the respondents have not challenged the

¶46

order dated 25.07.2006 passed in W.P.Nos.23437 to 23440 of 2006,

¶47

wherein, this Court has directed as follows.

¶48

“2. Without going into the merits of the case, suffice it to direct the respondent to implement the orders of the Tribunal passed in O.A.Nos.3455, 3458, 3456 and 3457 of 2002 dated 24.06.2002 within a

¶49

Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

¶51

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶52

The impugned order had been passed on the basis of the

¶53

order passed by the Delhi High Court, which observed that the respondents who were absorbed in Government service ceased to be a part of the cadre of teachers serving in schools run by the Panchayat Union and merely because their past services were counted for the purpose of protecting their 'Pay', it cannot be said that they would continue in the same cadre. Therefore, the respondents have not only failed to implement the order of the Administrative Tribunal, but, also sought to circumvent the judgment of this Court by referring to judgment passed by the Delhi High Court.

¶54

The strategy adopted by the respondent authorities has

¶55

to necessarily be deprecated. Having suffered an order and not challenging the same, the respondents are precluded from not

¶56

Page 7 of 10

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

¶59

implementing the order of the Administrative Tribunal. The respondents have not come forward with any valid and legal reasons for not implementing the order of the Administrative Tribunal.

¶60

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.

¶61

Consequently, connected W.M.P. stands closed. No costs.

24.06.2024 (1/4)

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes/No

Speaking order/Non-speaking order ssa

¶66

¶67

1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶68

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

¶69

3.The Director of School Education,

¶70

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

¶71

Page 8 of 10

¶72

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

¶73

College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶74

4.The Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶75

5.The Chief Educational Officer, Karur District, Karur.

¶76

Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

P.T.ASHA, J.,

ssa

W.P.No.2357 of 2016

¶81

24.06.2024

¶82

(1/4)

¶83

Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Marappan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Marappan v. The Government 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

Mullaikodi Ravi Vs The Secretary to Government

C.Jayaraman, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Barani Vs The Registrar of Cooperative

I.Shakila Vs The District Elementary

K.Pattraberhan, Vs The Joint Registrar of

Pondicherry Textiles Mills Vs Anglo French Textiles of