IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JJ.
The Government Of Tamilnadu Rep.by Secretary To The Government School Education Department, Fort St. George Chennai & Others – Appellants
Versus
K Ganesan & Others – Respondents
W.A. No. 37 of 2018 & C.M.P. No. 286 of 2018
Decided On : 05-07-2023
PROMOTION - PAY RESTRUCTURING - W.P.No.12564 of 2015 - G.O.Ms.No.207, School Education Department, dated 30.09.2008 - The court discussed the issue of pay fixation and entitlement to monetary benefits for teachers promoted as Primary School Headmasters after 01.06.1988. The judgment in S.Chandrasekaran's case was referenced, where it was held that such teachers are entitled to receive monetary benefits pursuant to their Selection Grade / Special Grade pay fixation of Primary School Headmaster, besides the monetary benefit in respect of retiral benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents, who were initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers and later promoted as Primary School Headmasters, were denied selection grade and special grade pay based on their earlier service as Secondary Grade Teachers, resulting in reduced pay and pension. They filed writ petitions seeking rectification of this anomaly.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the earlier order in S.Chandrasekaran's case allowed similar writ petitions, and no error was found in allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondent teachers. The writ appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of teachers promoted as Primary School Headmasters after 01.06.1988 to receive monetary benefits based on their earlier service as Secondary Grade Teachers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in S.Chandrasekaran's case, which held that such teachers are entitled to monetary benefits pursuant to their Selection Grade / Special Grade pay fixation of Primary School Headmaster, besides the monetary benefit in respect of retiral benefits.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer :Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 27.04.2015 in W.P.No.12564 of 2015.)
R. SURESH KUMAR, J
1. The respondents were initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers in the early 1970''s at Panchayat Union Elementary Schools at various places. After long years of service, they had been given promotion as Primary School Headmasters sometime in 1988.
2. In this context, it is to be noted that 01.06.1988, since was the cut off date, redesignation was made and the pay has been re-structured for various posts like Secondary Grade Teachers and Primary School Headmasters. In respect of these private respondents are concerned, since they retired from service after getting promotion after the cut off date ie., 01.06.1988, selection grade and special grade was not given by taking into account their earlier service as Secondary Grade Teachers.
3. Had the said service period been considered, certainly these people would have earned higher pay by conferring the status of selection grade and special grade. However, since they have been promoted in the meanwhile, the earlier service had not been taken into account for the purpose of conferring selection grade and special grade. With the result, there has been a lesser pay fixed and correspondingly, pension also had been reduced.
4. Therefore, in order to set right this anamoly, the respondent Teachers approached this Court and filed writ petition in W.P.No.12564 of 2015. Similar writ petitions in W.P.Nos.12563 and 12565 of 2015 were filed by other teachers similarly placed like the respondents. All the writ petitions were taken up together and the writ Court passed a common order on 27.04.2015.
5. In the said order the learned Judge, having considered the earlier order passed on the very same issue in W.P.No.25001 of 2012, was pleased to allow those writ petitions also. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the writ Court, the present appeal has been preferred.
6. Heard Mr.N.Murali, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. We have noticed that in fact the learned Judge, having taken note of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.25001 of 2012, has allowed those writ petitions. If we look at the earlier order that was passed in W.P.No.25001 of 2012 reported in 2015 (5) Law Weekly 140 in the matter of S.Chandrasekaran and Others -vs- The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Secretary to the Government, School Education Department and Others, a detailed discussion had been taken, where the issue has been discussed threadbare and ultimately the writ petitions filed by the persons similarly placed like the respondents herein, were allowed by the learned Judge.
8. In the said judgment in S.Chandrasekaran''s case, the learned Judge has taken note of the fact that already similar issue was considered in W.P.No.20706 of 2010, where a batch of writ petitions were allowed by order dated 05.08.2011 and this factor has been taken into account by the learned Judge in Para 27 of the said judgment in S.Chandrasekaran''s case, which reads thus,
" 27. This Court allowed the aforesaid writ petitions in W.P.Nos.20706 of 2010 etc., batch on 05.08.2011 and quashed the proceeding of the Director of Elementary Education dated 23.07.2010 and held that the persons, who were promoted as Primary School Headmasters after 01.06.1988 are entitled to receive monetary benefits pursuant to their Selection Grade / Special Grade pay fixation of Primary School Headmaster, besides the monetary benefit in respect of retiral benefits. Para 6 and a passage in Para 7 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
"6. In all these matters, the petitioners had served as Primary School Headmasters and retired from service. It is seen from the perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.207, School Education Department, dated 30.09.2008 that for the persons, who have been appointed as Primary School Headmaster
Teachers promoted as Primary School Headmasters after 01.06.1988 are entitled to receive monetary benefits based on their earlier service as Secondary Grade Teachers, as per the judgment in S.Chandra....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of teachers promoted as Primary School Headmasters after 01.06.1988 to the financial benefits of Selection Grade and Special Gra....
The concept of granting selection grade and special grade should not be tampered with and that teachers are either eligible for promotion or for Selection/Special Grade, not both.
Continuing wrong exception to laches permits belated Selection Grade claim for pension benefits post-school closure absorption.
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....
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 the entitlement to selection/special grade for government employees is based on stagnation in the same post without promotion for a certain pe....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the appellant's claim purely on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any previous observations.
Eligibility for Selection and Special Grade compensation for teachers is determined by service rendered before a statutory cutoff, upheld by higher judicial authority, barring reconsideration on proc....
Eligibility for Selection Grade requires completion of 10 years in the respective post, as per Pay Commission recommendations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.