Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
I. Salaludeen Ibrahim - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 12738 of 2019
Decided On : 06-04-2023
Mandamus - Appointment Approval - G.O.Ms.No.394, G.O.Ms.No.4, G.O.Ms.No.79, G.O.Ms.No.125 - The court discussed the validity of the appointments in light of G.O.Ms.No.394, G.O.Ms.No.4, and G.O.Ms.No.79, and concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits claimed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to approve their appointment as a Secondary Grade Assistant from 01.06.1998 with time scale of pay and release differential pay and benefits. The appointment was initially declined due to possession of B.T. Assistant qualification, and subsequent orders and litigations ensued.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits claimed, as the appointments did not fall within the scope of relevant government orders and the petitioner had been granted concessions in earlier litigations.
Issues: Validity of appointment approval, entitlement to benefits under government orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's appointment did not fall within the scope of relevant government orders and that the petitioner had been granted concessions in earlier litigations, thus not entitled to the benefits claimed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to approve the petitioner''s appointment with effect from 01.06.1998 with time scale of pay as admissible for that post and release the differential pay, allowance and other attendant benefits including pensionary benefits from the said date forthwith.)
1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to approve the petitioner''s appointment with effect from 01.06.1998 with time scale of pay as admissible for that post and release the differential pay, allowance and other attendant benefits including pensionary benefits from the said date forthwith.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit is that the petitioner was appointed on 01.06.1998 as Secondary Grade Assistant in Al-Ameen Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur. Madurai, a private minority aided institution. The said Secondary Grade Assistant post was sanctioned to the school by the 1st respondent, vide G.O.Ms.No.523, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997. After the appointment, the 4th respondent submitted the proposal to approve the appointment. The 3rd respondent, vide order, dated 15.08.1998, returned the proposal stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.394, School Education (D2) Department, dated 12.09.1997, approval could not be granted for the petitioner, since the petitioner is possessing B.Ed., qualification and no B.T. Assistant can be appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Assistant after 10.07.1995.
3. Hence the petitioner filed a petition in W.P.(MD)No.1151 of 2004 and this Court, vide a common order, dated 13.12.2004, directed the 3rd respondent herein to approve the petitioner''s appointment in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 125, dated 12.11.2003 and G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19.01.2004, issued by the School Education Department. Further, the Court directed the 3rd respondent to make consolidated pay from 12.11.2003 and treat the petitioner''s service from 01.06.1998 for the purpose of service benefits. Pursuant to the order the school again submitted the proposal dated 20.01.2005 to grant approval and the 3rd respondent, vide his proceedings, dated 16.06.2015, approved the petitioner''s appointment with consolidated pay of Rs.4,000/- per month with effect from 12.11.2003. Subsequently, based on G.O.Ms.No.99, Education Department, dated 27.06.2006, the petitioner was granted time scale of pay from 01.06.2006, vide proceedings, dated 14.09.2006.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the scheme of consolidated pay would arise only in respect of appointments approved, vide G.O.Ms.No.4, School Education (X2) Department, dated 19.01.2004, which governs only the vacancies arising from 01.06.2003 and the appointments made therein. In the petitioner''s case, the post was sanctioned vide, G.O.Ms.No.523, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.4. Therefore, the petitioner''s appointment would not come within the scheme of consolidated pay. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted time scale of pay from 01.06.2006 instead of 01.06.1998. The delay caused in passing approval cannot be fasten on the petitioner. Infact, subsequently, an order was issued, vide G.O.Ms.No.79, School Education dated 14.06.2002, to fill the post of Secondary Grade Teachers only with the candidates possessing B.Ed., qualification. The petitioner''s retirement date on attaining superannuation was 31.07.2018, but the petitioner was granted re-employment for the academic year and the petitioner has served from 01.08.2018 to 31.05.2019. The petitioner came to know that several teachers appointed before 01.04.2003 filed writ petitions before this Court to grant time scale of pay. Since the petitioner is also placed on the same footing, the petitioner should be considered on par with the similarly placed persons and direct the respondents to grant the benefits as
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the approval of appointment and disbursement of salary for teachers in Secondary Grade vacancies is subject to the conditions and implications....
The date of approval of appointment cannot be construed as the relevant date for considering the applicability of the pension scheme, and it is the original date of appointment that matters for deter....
A Writ of Mandamus is issued directing government authorities to consider and pass orders on a pending proposal for official approval of an appointment in an aided school within a stipulated time fra....
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....
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....
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
