Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
P. Subramanian
Versus
The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to the Government Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department Chennai & Others
W.P.No.503 of 2008
DECIDED ON : 05-01-2010
Primary School Headmaster - Service Reversion - G.O.Ms.No.1381, School Education Department, dated 10. 1990 - The court discussed the legal provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1381, School Education Department, dated 10. 1990, which entitled the Headmasters of Primary Schools to count the service rendered as Secondary Grade Teachers as well as Primary School Headmasters prior to 6. 1988. The court highlighted the application of Fundamental Rules 22B.d and Rule 15, emphasizing the right of the incumbent to retain the post by way of lien. The court also referred to G.O.Ms.No.784, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 15. 1979, which regulated the pay of Headmasters Middle School after reversion. The judgment in D.Palavesamuthu v. Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and others, [2006] 1 MLJ 143 was cited to support the petitioner's claim. The court also discussed the principles of natural justice and equitable relief in the context of pay revision and recovery after retirement, citing judgments in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C.Mazdoor Congress & Others, 1991(1) All India Services Law Journal 56 and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, [2008] 8 SCC 648. The court emphasized the need for fair and impartial decision-making and highlighted the concept of continuing wrong and the right to challenge unfair terms in agreements. The court also referred to the Payment of Gratuity Act to support the petitioner's claim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Secondary Grade Teacher, was appointed as Primary School Headmaster and later reverted to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher due to a lack of vacancy. The petitioner's pay was re-fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.1381, School Education Department, dated 10. 1990, even after reversion. After retirement, the pay was abruptly revised without notice, and a substantial amount was recovered from the pensionary benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's pay re-fixation after reversion was in accordance with the Fundamental Rules and government orders. The court held that the abrupt pay revision and recovery after retirement violated the principles of natural justice and the right to fair decision-making. The court emphasized the concept of continuing wrong and equitable relief, directing the respondents to return the recovered amount with interest and restore the petitioner's pay as originally fixed.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of pay re-fixation and recovery after retirement, the application of G.O.Ms.No.1381, School Education Department, dated 10. 1990, and the principles of natural justice and equitable relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the application of Fundamental Rules, G.O.Ms.No.1381, School Education Department, dated 10. 1990, and G.O.Ms.No.784, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 15. 1979, to protect the petitioner's right to retain the post and the pay re-fixation. The court also emphasized the need for fair and impartial decision-making, the concept of continuing wrong, and the right to challenge unfair terms in agreements.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the respondents to return the recovered amount with interest, restore the petitioner's pay as originally fixed, and pay all consequential monetary benefits. The respondents were directed to comply with the orders within twelve weeks.
The writ petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 17. 1972 in the Department of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare and thereafter promoted as Primary School Headmaster. In the said post he was working from 1. 1988 to 30.11.1989 at Adi Dravidar Welfare Primary School, Nallur, Vridhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District. He was reverted to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in November, 1989 and again promoted as Primary School Headmaster on 16. 1999 and he retired from service on 38. 2004 on attainment of age of superannuation.
2. Before 6. 1988, the posts of Primary School Headmaster and Secondary Grade Teacher were treated as transferable and interchangeable, since both carried the same scale of pay. The persons who were Secondary Grade Teachers posted in exigencies as Primary School Headmasters before 6. 1988 were granted special allowance. It was by G.O.Ms.No.666, dated 27. 1989, as per the V Pay Commission recommendation, the post of Primary School Headmaster was separated with higher scale of pay than the Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 6. 1988.
3. By a proceeding of the Director of Elementary Education dated 12. 1990, the persons who were holding the post of Primary School Headmaster as on 6. 1988 were allowed to continue by deeming them to have been appointed in the said post and the posts of Primary School Headmaster which fell vacant after 6. 1988 were directed to be filled up as per the seniority in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers, since the post of Primary School Headmaster has become a promotional post with higher scale of pay with effect from 6. 1988. It is stated that the Department of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare has also followed the said procedure and persons who were working as Primary School Headmasters as on 6. 1988 were allowed to continue in the said post .
.4. In G.O.Ms.No.1381, School Education Department, dated 10. 1990, the Government has directed that the teachers who were holding the post of Primary School Headmasters as on 6. 1988 are eligible to count the service rendered both as Secondary Grade Teacher as well as Primary School Headmaster for the award of selection grade and special grade pay. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was holding the post of Primary School Headmaster on 6. 1988, he was allowed to continue in the said post and his pay was fixed in the selection grade scale of pay of Primary School Headmaster of Rs.1640-2900/-by taking into account the services rendered in the post of Primary School Headmaster and Secondary Grade Teacher as per the above said government order dated 10. 1990.
5. Even though the petitioner was reverted as Secondary Grade Teacher on 111. 1989, he was allowed to draw the pay in the post of Primary School Headmaster till 211. 2004. It is stated that as on 1. 1996 his pay was fixed at Rs.7,100/- in the scale of pay of Rs.6,500-10,500/- and on the date of his retirement it was fixed at Rs.8,300/- in the scale of pay of Rs.6,500-10,500/-. As stated above, after reversion the petitioner was again promoted as Primary School Headmaster on 16. 1999.
6. After the retirement of the petitioner, the fourth respondent in the proceeding dated 211. 2004 has refixed the pay of the petitioner as Primary School Headmaster on the ground that after 6. 1988 he has not continuously worked as Primary School Headmaster and therefore, the pay was reduced from Rs.1,760/- to Rs.1,500/- with effect from 6. 1988 and recovery of Rs.3,39,929/-came to be ordered from the gratuity. In sequence to the said order, the fifth respondent has recovered Rs.2,11,152/- from gratuity on 14. 2005 and Rs.1,28,777/-from commuted value pension amount on 28. 2005.
7. The case of the petitioner is that since he was holding the post of Primary School Headmaster on 6. 1988, his pay was fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.1381, School Education Department, dated 10. 1990 and that came to be revised after 16 years. It is the case of the petitioner that even the reversio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
