Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
T. Joseph Anton Kingston - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 15312 of 2019 & W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 11886 & 11887 of 2019
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Writ Petition - Pay Protection - G.O.Ms.No.1580, dated 18.10.1969 and G.O.Ms.No.2357, dated 27.12.1988 - The court discussed the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1580 and G.O.Ms.No.2357 in the context of pay protection for teachers transferring from private aided schools to government schools. The court analyzed the conditions for granting pay protection and the relevance of these government orders in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought pay protection and extension of benefits from previous aided school to current government school. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's claim citing G.O.Ms.No.992, dated 22.06.1979, and Fundamental Rule 22B. The petitioner contended that the impugned reasoning was contrary to G.O.Ms.No.1580 and G.O.Ms.No.2357, which provide for pay protection in specific transfer scenarios.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Fundamental Rules and G.O.Ms.No.1580 and G.O.Ms.No.2357 were not applicable to the petitioner's case. The court held that the petitioner's appointment was through direct recruitment, not by transfer, and the prescribed scale of pay in the recruitment notification was applicable. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim for pay protection could not be entertained.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1580 and G.O.Ms.No.2357, the nature of the petitioner's appointment, and the relevance of the prescribed scale of pay in the recruitment notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the Fundamental Rules and the cited government orders were not applicable to the petitioner's case. The court emphasized that the petitioner's appointment through direct recruitment and acceptance of the prescribed scale of pay in the recruitment notification precluded the claim for pay protection based on previous salary from a private aided school.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim for pay protection could not be entertained. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were 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 order passed by the 3rd respondent, issued in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3615/E2/2019, dated 28.06.2019, to quash the same and consequentially, to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1580, dated 18.10.1969 and G.O.Ms.No.2357, dated 27.12.1988, to the case of the petitioner and to protect the last drawn pay of the petitioner at Rs.16610+4800(GP)(9300- 34800+4800)(GP) as on 21.09.2012, in the post of P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) and to fix the same to the petitioner from 22.09.2012 when the petitioner joined the Government Higher Secondary School, Palakurichi, Nagapattinam and grant all consequential and monetary benefits with arrears and interest and seniority and other consequential service benefits.)
1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings, dated 28.06.2019 and consequentially, to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1580, dated 18.10.1969 and G.O.Ms.No.2357, dated 27.12.1988, to the case of the petitioner and to protect the last drawn pay of the petitioner at Rs. 16610+4800(GP)(9300- 34800+4800)(GP) as on 21.09.2012, in the post of P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) and to fix the same to the petitioner from 22.09.2012 when the petitioner joined the Government Higher Secondary School, Palakurichi, Nagapattinam and grant all consequential and monetary benefits with arrears and interest and seniority and other consequential service benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Grade P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) at St. Anne''s Higher Secondary School, Koodangulam, in the consolidated pay of Rs. 4500/- per month for 5 years, vide order, dated 24.08.2004 and the same was approved by the District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli, vide order, dated 19.07.2005, Thereafter, the petitioner''s salary was fixed as Rs. 6,500/- with effect from 01.06.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner was brought under time scale of pay and granted Rs. 9300- 34800+4800 with effect from 01.06.2006. The petitioner was also granted incentives increments for M.Phil. higher qualifications on 13.10.2009. The petitioner was working in St. Anne''s Hr. Sec. School, Koodangulam until 21.09.2012 afternoon. The petitioner got an appointment as P.G. Assistant (Chemistry), in Government Higher Secondary School, Palakurichi, Nagapattinam on 22.09.2012. The petitioner was issued relieving order by the District Education Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli on 21.09.2012 and he joined the above said Government School on 22.09.2012 forenoon. The petitioner had completed probation on 21.09.2014. Originally through counselling, the petitioner was appointed in Government Higher Secondary School, R.S.Manglam, Ramanathapuram on 04.06.2013. Thereafter, in Government Higher Secondary School, Vadakku Chellaiahnallur on 28.10.2014 and subsequently, in the respondent''s school on 18.06.2018. While he was working in Government Higher Secondary School, Vadakku Chellaiahnallur, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings, dated 15.07.2016 granted Selection Grade by counting the petitioner''s past service rendered in St. Anne''s Higher Secondary School, which is from 25.08.2004 to 21.09.2012. However, the respondents failed to fix the petitioner''s salary received in the aided school, i.e., Rs.16610+4800 (GP) (9300-34800+4800) (GP) and fixed a lesser pay of Rs. 9300+4800 (GP). The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 12.06.2017, to the respondents seeking re-fixation of his pay based on his last drawn pay in the aided school at St. Anne''s Higher Secondary School and the same was forwarded by the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Vadakku Chellaiahnallur to the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings, dated 22.06.2017.
3. Since no action
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 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 in the judgment is that the nature of appointment, whether through direct recruitment or transfer of service, determines the applicability of pay protection based on ....
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 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 delay in approaching the court does not affect the claim for pay protection and higher pension, and the recurring cause of action in matters of pay scale and consequential pension justifies the r....
Resignation from a government service results in the forfeiture of previous service, as per Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, and pension benefits cannot be based on service r....
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
