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 of the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India due to improper pay scale fixation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 09.11.2016 in Na.Ka.No.1192/A2/2016 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same, consequently, direct the fourth respondent to implement the pay fixation order of the petitioner dated 29.07.2016 passed by the fourth respondent.)

1. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Junior Secondary Grade Teacher in an Aided Elementary School, Ammapet, Salem. Her services therein was regularized on 01.06.2006 in a regular time scale of pay. On 23.07.2009, the petitioner had resigned and was relieved from the services, since she was selected for a Government post in a Panchayat Union Elementary School, Vinayagam Patty, Salem Rural, Salem, wherein she had joined on the next day i.e., on 24.07.2009. Though the petitioner was entitled for calculation of her services and pay protection in the earlier service in the Aided School, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner would be allowed only a minimum time scale of pay applicable to the Government School, since she had resigned from her service. Accordingly, the earlier orders of calculating the services of 10 years for the purpose of fixation of the selection Grade of Pay was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to remit the excess amount of

Rs.7,88,170/-. Challenging this proceeding, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. Heard Mr. M. R.Jothimanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.H. Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The reasoning adopted by the respondents cannot be sustained in view of the protection granted to the petitioner under FR 22(B) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, as well as by the various orders of this Court. In one such order passed in the case of G. Rufus David Vs. The Secretary to State Government, Department of School Education, Chennai & Another passed in W.P.No.32645 of 2018 dated 16.07.2019. This proposition was upheld in the following manner:-

“9.This Court, after considering the arguments of both sides, is unable to appreciate the stand of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to fixation of proper pay scale on par with other similarly placed teachers only because of the fact that he had, on his own wish, went to Government service, after rendering 14½ years of continuous service in aided schools. This Court is unable to comprehend such objection being raised, that too, seriously by the Government. Any teacher, who worked in aided school, would always like to migrate to Government service for betterment of their service benefits and career. Such option exercised by the petitioner cannot be put against him and on that basis, the denial of pay scale on par with other similarly placed teachers, would be grossly discriminatory and would cause grave injustice to the interest of the petitioner. In fact the improper fixation of pay scale, without taking into account the past service of the petitioner in the aided schools, would amount to violation of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

10.In fact while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the Authorities have not taken into consideration the contents of G.O.Ms.No.367, Educational, Science and Technology Department dated 30.03.1984. According to the said Government Order, the appointment of Higher Grade teacher in upgraded post of Secondary Grade Teacher, is also entitled to fixation of pay under FR 22(B) and the benefit of the orders referred to in paragraph (1) of the Government Order would also be extended to these appointments as well. Unfortunately, it appears that the Authority has not applied his mind properly with reference to the contents of the said Government Order and has simply denied only on specious reasoning that the petitioner has migrated to Government S