The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of pay protection for a government servant based on past service rendered in an aided school, as provided in G.O.Ms.No.367, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 30.03.1984.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of The Letters Patent against the Order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 32645 of 2018 on the file of this Court.)

This appeal is filed by the State as against the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 32645 of 2018.

2. The said Writ Petition was filed by the respondent herein to set aside the proceedings dated 15.11.2018 of the second appellant herein and for a consequential direction to the appellants to re-fix his pay as per G.O.Ms.No.367, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 30.03.1984. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 15.11.2018 of the second appellant herein, with a direction to the appellants to pass appropriate orders by taking note of the last pay of the respondent before his migration to the Government service, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.367, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 30.03.1984 and pay arrears of differential pay to him on such re-fixation.

3. For the purpose of disposal of this Writ Appeal, the facts, as pleaded by the respondent in the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge, are to be examined.

4. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, he was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant on 28.06.1994 and posted at C.S.I. Higher Secondary School, Ketty, The Nilgiris District. Such appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner was approved by the District Educational Officer, Coonoor. At the time of appointment of the respondent, his scale of pay was fixed at Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040. From 01.07.1994 to 02.01.2009, the respondent worked at various aided schools without any break. In the year 2006, upon completion of 10 years of service, the respondent/writ petitioner was also conferred with Selection Grade in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. During the year 2009, while giving effect to the benefits of the VI Pay Commission fixation, the scale of pay of the respondent/writ petitioner was revised as Rs.16,650/- in Pay Band-2 in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs.4,300/- with retrospective effect from January 2006. According to the respondent, as on 02.01.2009, the respondent/writ petitioner was working as Selection Grade Secondary Grade teacher without any break.

5. When the respondent/writ petitioner was working as Secondary Grade Teacher, during December 2008, the Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board issued a Notification calling for applications for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant. In response, the respondent/writ petitioner applied for such post and got selected. On such selection, by proceedings dated 29.12.2008 of the Joint Director of School Education, the scale of pay of the respondent was fixed at Rs.5500-175-9000 in the pre-revised scale, which was by way of recommendation of the VI Pay Commission implementation, as per which, the respondent/writ petitioner was paid Rs.14,630/- as Basic Pay with applicable Grade Pay, which was lower than the one he was drawing before his migration. Further, on such appointment, the respondent/writ petitioner was relieved from the Aided School on 02.01.2009, which was also duly approved by the District Educational Officer, Gudalur. On the next day, i.e. on 03.01.2009, the respondent/writ petitioner joined the new post of B.T. Assistant, and thus, there was no break in service. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, his appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant was neither by way of promotion, nor by way of direct recruitment. As per Rule 3 (1) (IV) of The Special Rules for Tamil Nadu School Education, the appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner shall be considered to be an appointment by way of transfer of service from a class which carries identical scale of pay.

6. It is contended that the Government issued G.O.M