Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3919
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
K. Mahimaidoss
Versus
The Secretary to Government & Others
W.P.No. 24851 of 2013
Decided On: 31-10-2014
For the Petitioner:Gilbert C. Pereira, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, R. Ravichandran, Addl. Govt. Pleader, R3, Godson Swaminathan, Advocate.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Act, 1973 - Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Rules, 1974 - Private Schools Act - Section 2(7) - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act - Purpose of staff grant - Post of Watchman - Regularization of service – Employment and service - Petitioner is being paid a sum as total pay per month while his basic pay and balance amount are towards other allowances namely Dearness Allowance City Compensatory Allowance and House Rent Allowance - Third respondent institute was established and has been receiving aid from Tamil Nadu Government - Petitioner sought for regularization of service and thereby to give him time scale of pay applicable to post of Watchman from date of appointment - If his services are not regularized he would not get pension and other terminal benefits when he retires shortly - Third respondent also sent proposals for regularization of service of petitioner - In fact second respondent made a recommendation in proceedings to first respondent for regularizing service of petitioner - Annexure to recommendation contains names of persons who are working in Private Aided Teacher Training Institutes like that of third respondent and two of them were regularized as per list - Petitioners name is found in Annexure to recommendation - Aforesaid recommendation discloses that various correspondences between first and second respondents took place relating to regularization of service of persons like petitioner serving in Private Aided Teacher Training Institutes for so many years – Held, Continued right of any institution to receive any aid is to be considered keeping in view relevant applicable from time to time – Similarly in respect of minority institutions which were receiving aid in respect of some of posts and were seeking for approval and payment of aid for any additional post such question is required to be considered within a period of four months by keeping in view teacher pupil ratio applicable during any particular period – If on other hand any school or any post is found ineligible for sanction of grant such decision should be communicated to concerned institution by giving brief reasons within a period of three weeks from date of order of refusal - In view of said Division Bench Judgment in first respondent shall regularize service of petitioner and shall pay grant to regular post of Watchman - For all aforesaid reasons impugned order is liable to quashed as per Private Schools Act and Private Schools Rules that provide for partial aid to teacher training institutes like that of third respondent - Second respondent has stated in recommendation that if petitioner is regularized from date of his appointment liability of State till date of recommendation - In toot there are only contingent employees in Private Aided Teacher Training Institutes including petitioner - Total amount of liability pursuant to their regularization is not a big one particularly since these contingent employees are now paid by State for their employment but not granted time scale of pay and consequential increase in allowances - Taking into account these facts and also other reasons stated supra while quashing impugned order court inclined to issue a direction to first respondent to regularize service of petitioner from date of appointment as Watchman with all monetary benefits - In result while quashing order of first respondent a direction is issued to first respondent to regularize service of petitioner from date of his appointment as Watchman and to grant time scale of pay applicable to post with all monetary benefits within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order - Writ petition is allowed
1. The petitioner was appointed as a Watchman by the third respondent Teacher Training Institute at Cuddalore by an order dated 30.10.1980 with effect from 01.11.1980 subject to the approval of the Inspectress of Girls Schools, Cuddalore.
2. The said appointment was approved by the Inspectress of Girls Schools, Cuddalore, on 04.12.1981. The Inspectress fixed the pay for the purpose of staff grant to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.18 + allowances.
3. At present, the petitioner is being paid a sum of Rs.8,989/- as total pay per month, while his basic pay is Rs.20/- and the balance amount are towards other allowances, namely, Dearness Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance and House Rent Allowance.
4. The third respondent institute was established in 1934 and has been receiving aid from the Tamil Nadu Government.
5. The petitioner sought for regularization of the service and thereby to give him the time scale of pay applicable to the post of Watchman, from the date of appointment. If his services are not regularized, he would not get pension and other terminal benefits, when he retires shortly. The third respondent also sent proposals for regularization of the service of the petitioner.
6. In fact, the second respondent made a recommendation in the proceedings in Rc.No.7151/C3/1999, dated 20.06.2002 to the first respondent for regularising the service of the petitioner. The annexure to the recommendation contains the names of 16 persons (contingent staff), who are working in the Private Aided Teacher Training Institutes like that of the third respondent, and two of them were regularised, as per the list.
7. The petitioner's name is found at Sl.No.7 in the Annexure to the recommendation dated 20.06.2002. The aforesaid recommendation discloses that various correspondences between the first and second respondents took place relating to the regularization of service of the persons like the petitioner serving in the Private Aided Teacher Training Institutes for so many years.
8. In the meantime, one Gnana Pragasam, working in an Private Aided Teacher Training Institutes in Tirunelveli District as a Gardener, whose name is shown at Sl.No.11 in the Annexure to the aforesaid recommendation letter dated 20.06.2002 of the second respondent, filed W.P.No.10364 of 2000 seeking for regularization of the service. This Court by the order dated 26.06.2000 in W.P.No.10364 of 2000 directed the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training (second respondent herein) to consider the representation of Thiru.Gnana Pragasam dated 27.01.2000 on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.577, Education Department, dated 01.04.1981 for regularization of service, and pass orders thereon.
9. In these circumstances, the second respondent herein sent a proposal in letter Na.Ka.No.7151/C3/99, dated 27.01.2006, to the first respondent, requesting to regularise the service of 14 persons, including the said Gnana Pragasam and the petitioner, whose names are given in the Annexure enclosed in the earlier letter dated 20.06.2002. The second respondent also stated that two persons, who were mentioned in the Annexure to the list dated 20.06.2002, were regularised in G.O.(1D).No.46, School Education Department, dated 08.02.2000. Hence, the second respondent recommended for passing similar order of regularization of 14 other persons, including the petitioner. The second respondent also brought to the notice of the first respondent about the order dated 26.06.2000 made in W.P.No.10364 of 2000 preferred by one Thiru.Gnana Pragasam, who is one among the said 14 persons.
10. The first respondent passed an order dated 07.03.2007, in Lr.No.7683/U2/2000-31 rejecting the proposal of the second respondent for regularization of the service of contingent employees in the Private Aided Teacher Training Institutes, including the petitioner.
11. The said Gnana Pragasam filed W.P.(MD)No.10915 of 2007 questioning the aforesaid order of the first respondent dated 07.03.2007 and also soug
