Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. Prakash & R. Vijayakumar, JJ.
S.K. Kannan P.G. Assistant(Chemistry)Government Higher Secondary School Nadayaneri, Virudhunagar - Appellant
Versus
The Director of School Education Office of the Director of School Education Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.A(MD).No. 627 of 2022
Decided On : 15-07-2022
Pay Anomaly - Appointment and Pay Fixation - Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service - Rule 2(b)(ii), Rule 8 - The court held that the petitioner's appointment as P.G.Assistant was through direct recruitment and not by transfer of service. The court emphasized the distinction between direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer, and ruled that the petitioner cannot claim pay protection based on his previous post. The court also rejected the contention that the Division Bench judgment and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court supported the petitioner's claim.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a B.T.Assistant (Science), sought re-fixation of his salary as a P.G.Assistant based on his last drawn salary in the previous post. The petitioner's request was rejected, leading to the filing of a writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment as P.G.Assistant was through direct recruitment, not by transfer of service, and ruled that he cannot claim pay protection based on his previous post. The court also rejected the contention that the Division Bench judgment and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court supported the petitioner's claim.
Issues: The main issues were the nature of the petitioner's appointment as P.G.Assistant and the applicability of pay protection based on his previous post as a B.T.Assistant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service, which clearly differentiated between direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer. The court emphasized the distinction between the two methods of appointment and ruled that the petitioner's appointment was through direct recruitment, precluding his claim for pay protection based on his previous post.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petition.
JUDGMENT :
R. Vijayakumar, J.
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order made in W.P(MD).No.6285 of 2018 dated 08.03.2022.)
1. The writ petitioner is the appellant.
2. The writ petition was filed to quash an order passed by the fourth respondent herein wherein the request of the petitioner for re-fixation of his salary taking note of the last drawn salary in the previous post of B.T.Assistant (Science) was rejected.
3. The petitioner was appointed as B.T.Assistant (Science) in the Elementary Education through Teachers Recruitment Board on 09.04.2007 in the Panchayat Union Middle School. He has completed his probation on 08.04.2009. He was working in the said Elementary Education School till 09.06.2013. According to the petitioner, a recruitment process was commenced for P.G.Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Education by the Teachers Recruitment Board. The petitioner was selected and appointed as P.G.Assistant on 10.06.2013 in a Government High Secondary School and he has completed his probation on 09.06.2015.
4. The petitioner has further contended that he was relieved from the post of B.T.Assistant (Science) in the fore noon on 10.06.2013 and he immediately joined on the same day namely 10.06.2013 as P.G.Assistant. The same Service Register which was used while the petitioner was B.T.Assistant (Science) was continued to be used even after he was appointed as a P.G.Assistant (Chemistry).
5. The main grievance of the petitioner was that when he joined as a P.G.Assistant, he started drawing a lesser salary before than what he was receiving as last drawn salary in the post of B.T.Assistant (Science). Hence, he gave several representations to the respondents requesting them to consider his request for re-fixation of his salary in tune with last drawn salary for the post of B.T.Assistant. Finally, the petitioner gave a representation on 20.12.2017 to the Chief Minister Special Cell which was forwarded to the third respondent herein. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 16.02.2018 requested the fourth respondent (who is the Headmaster of the School in which the petitioner was working) directing him to pass orders and report the same to him.
6. The fourth respondent herein has passed the impugned order on 03.03.2018 rejecting the request of the petitioner on the following grounds.
(i). In the appointment order of the petitioner as P.G.Assistant (Chemistry), the pay was fixed as Rs.9300/- 34800/- and hence, the said salary cannot be refixed now by the Headmaster.
(ii). The petitioner has got selected through the Teachers Recruitment Board for the post of B.T.Assistant (Science) and thereafter, again got selected through the Teachers Recruitment Board for P.G.Assistant (Chemistry). Since both the services are completely different, there is no possibility of re-fixation of pay scale based on previous service.
(iii). No proposal or advise has been received from the second respondent for pay fixation.
7. The above said impugned order was challenged by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge on the following grounds:
(i). The second respondent alone is the competent authority to fix the pay scale. The third respondent had erroneously sent the proposal to the fourth respondent.
(ii). The petitioner was originally selected as B.T.Assistant (Science) through the Teachers Recruitment Board and thereafter, through the selection of Teachers Recruitment Board, he has again been selected as a P.G.Assistant. Hence, the appointment of the petitioner as P.G.Assistant should only be considered to be an appointment by transfer of service. When the appointment of the petitioner is by transfer of service, he is entitled to pay protection. Therefore, the authorities were not right in rejecting his request to refix the pay scale on the basis of the last drawn salary of th
AI
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
