JUDGMENT :

Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer in O.Mu.No.471/A2/2013 dated 13.06.2013, quash the same and further direct the 3rd and 4th respondents herein to sanction and disburse salary to the petitioner by re-fixing his scale of pay after reckoning his previous service rendered in the 6th respondent aided School (28.08.2000 to 16.12.2012 and on the basis of the last drawn pay there, with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary and allowance.

1. The writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the fourth respondent and to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to sanction and disburse the salary of the petitioner by re-fixing his scale of pay after reckoning his previous service rendered in the sixth respondent aided school with all attendance benefits including the arrears of salary and allowances.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the 6th respondent School is a recognized aided minority Institution and he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the said School on 28.08.2000 in a sanctioned post. The said appointment was approved by the third respondent on 30.01.2001 with effect from 28.08.2000. The petitioner was drawing a salary in the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000. After rendering service for 12 years and 4 months, he was drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs.5200-2800-20200+750 PP (Basic pay of Rs.17,450/-). The petitioner was appointed in the fifth respondent Panchayat Union Middle School and hence, he was relieved from the sixth respondent School on 17.12.2012 fore noon. On the same day, he joined in the fifth respondent School.

3. According to the petitioner, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.5200-2800-20200+750 PP (Total Rs.8750/-). The petitioner has contended that he was placed in a lesser pay scale than what he was drawing while he was working in the same cadre in the sixth respondent aided School. The petitioner sent a representation to the fourth respondent on 06.04.2013 and the said request was rejected by the fourth respondent on 13.06.2013 which is impugned in the present Writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the private aided School and now he was appointed in the same cadre in the Government School and hence, his appointment in the fifth respondent School should be treated only by way of transfer of service. Since the appointment is to be treated as transfer of service, the service rendered by the writ petitioner in the private aided School should be taken into consideration not only for pensionary benefit but also for pay fixation and monitory benefits.

5. The third respondent has filed a counter contending that the petitioner was originally working in an aided minority School. His service condition was governed under Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 and Rules 1974 framed thereunder. The appointment of the writ petitioner in the fifth respondent School is a fresh appointment and now, the petitioner is governed by the Provisions of Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service Rules. Since the appointment of the writ petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the fifth respondent School is a fresh appointment and the service conditions of aided Schools teachers and to that of teachers in government service are completely different, the service rendered by the petitioner in aided School cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of pay fixation of the petitioner in the Government School.

6. I have considered the submission of the writ petitioner and that of the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.32645 of 2018 dated 16.07.2019 wherein u