Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
L. Esakkiraj - Appellant
Versus
The Chief Educational Officer, Thirunelveli & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 4136 of 2015 & M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2015
Decided On : 05-04-2022
Selection Grade Pay - Government Service - Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulations Act, 1973 - [Summary of Acts and Sections referenced: Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulations Act, 1973] - The court discussed the petitioner's contention to fix the Selection Grade pay band received during service in the Aided School in the Government School. The court emphasized that the petitioner willingly joined the Government service with knowledge of the salary conditions and cannot now seek to fix the pay band granted in the Aided School in the Government service. The judgment highlights the distinction between the terms and conditions of service in Aided School and Government service, and the implications of allowing such pleas on pay disparity in recruitment processes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order and obtain Selection Grade Pay scale in the Government School based on service rendered in an Aided School. The petitioner contended that the service in the Aided School should be considered for pay fixation in the Government School.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner willingly joined the Government service with knowledge of the salary conditions and cannot now seek to fix the pay band granted in the Aided School in the Government service. The court emphasized the distinction between the terms and conditions of service in Aided School and Government service.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's service in the Aided School should be considered for pay fixation in the Government School.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner cannot claim to fix the Selection Grade pay received in the Aided School in the Government service, as the terms and conditions of service are entirely different. Allowing such pleas would lead to pay disparity and set a dangerous precedent.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st Respondent in X.K.vz;.5684/m5/2014, dated 20.06.2014 and to quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the 1st respondent to pay Selection Grade Pay scale at a sum of Rs.9300-34800+4300- Pb2 by including the service rendered by the petitioner at the aided school from the date of his appointment at the 3rd respondent school that is on 24.11.2012.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order in X.K.vz;.5684/m5/2014, dated 20.06.2014 and consequentially to pay Selection Grade Pay scale at a sum of Rs. 9300-34800+4300-Pb2 by including the service rendered by the petitioner at the aided school from the date of his appointment at the 3rd respondent school that is on 24.11.2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has completed the certificate course in Physical Education in Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board. The petitioner enrolled in employment exchange on 17.08.1992. The petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 30.03.1996 in Chathiram Bharathi Higher Secondary School, Kadayam, Tirunelveli District. Thereafter, transferred to Venkateshwarapuram Village Committee Higher Secondary School in the academic year 2004-2005. On 27.02.2007, the petitioner was granted Selection Grade along with the monetary benefits. In the meanwhile, the District Employment Officer has deleted the petitioner's registration from the live register. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.5196 of 2011 and the same was allowed, vide order, dated 29.04.2011. Accordingly, the petitioner's seniority was restored to its original place and thereafter, the petitioner's name was recommended by the District Employment Office, Tirunelveli and he was appointed as Physical Education Teacher at Manjammal Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Thenkasi. The petitioner joined on 24.11.2012.
3. The petitioner's contention is that he has joined with the permission of the second respondent to the new Government School. While he was serving in the Aided School, the petitioner was granted Selection Grade Physical Education Teacher pay band and has received the salary at the sum of Rs.9300-34800+4300- Pb2. However, in the Government School, the petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in Manjammal Government Girls Higher Secondary with a pay fixation as Rs.5200-2800+750. The contention of the petitioner is that since the petitioner was appointed in a Government School, the respondents ought to have taken the service rendered in Aided School and ought to have taken the Selection Grade pay and fixed the same in the Government School, while appointing the petitioner in the Government School. Hence, the petitioner has prayed to grant and fix the Selection Grade pay band that was received during the service rendered in the Aided School and pay the monetary benefits and arrears.
4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was working in Aided School from 17.08.1992 and has obtained a Selection Grade in the category of Physical Education Teacher. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected in the Government service and was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher on 24.11.2012. The first respondent has appointed the petitioner, vide order, dated 24.11.2012, made in Na.Ka.No.12739/A4/2012. At the time of appointment in the Government School as a Government Teacher, the scale of pay was specifically mentioned as Rs.5200-29200+G.P.2800. The petitioner has accepted the Government service and has joined the duty on his own willingness. However, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 11.01.2014, to fix a pay scale of Rs.9300+4300 G.P. The earlier service in Aided School the service terms and conditi
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner who willingly joins Government service with knowledge of the salary conditions cannot later seek to fix the pay band granted in t....
The service conditions for Teachers in Aided Schools and Government Schools are distinct and separate, and the appointment based on the recruitment process is independent, precluding the entitlement ....
The main legal point established is that the service period in an aided institution should be considered for the grant of Special Grade Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.992, Education Department, dated 22.06.197....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prescribed scale of pay in the recruitment notification for direct recruitment to government schools prevails over claims for pay protecti....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to proper pay fixation based on past service in aided schools, as protected under FR 22(B) and G.O.Ms.No.367, and the violation ....
The judgment established the principle that recovery of excess payment can be ordered unless extreme hardship is caused to the employee. It also highlighted the importance of public money and the rel....
Stale and belated claims cannot be entertained, and benefits as directed by a Full Bench order shall be extended only to parties before the Court, with no fresh writ petitions entertained after a spe....
The main legal point established is the inapplicability of G.O.Ms.No.216 to the petitioner due to delay and laches, and the determination that the petitioner, working in a private aided school, was o....
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
