SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 104171

MADRAS HIGH COURT
J.Helbert – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
WP 30463/2018



Advocates:
['M/s G Sankaran', '', 'A Maheshnath', 'S Nedunchezhiyan', 'GOVT ADVOCATE TAKES NOTICE']

W.P.No.30463 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.30463 of 2018

J.Helbert

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government,

School Education Department,

Secretariat, Fort St.George,

Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Director of Elementary Education,

DPI Campus, College Road,

Chennai – 600 006.

3.The District Educational Officer,

Ariyalur District,

Ariyalur.

4.The Block Educational Officer,

T.Palur Union,

Ariyalur District.

..Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to pass appropriate

orders for allowing fixation of Selection Grade scale of pay to the Petitioner

in the post of Secondary grade Teacher in the pre-revised scale of pay and

consequently allow the petitioner with fixation of scale of pay in Pay Band-

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30463 of 2018

II Rs.9,300-34,800 + 4500GP in Tamil Nadu Revised Pay Scales Rules,

2009, notified in G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated

01.06.2009 with all consequential and attendant benefits, by considering the

representation submitted by the Petitioner dated 02.01.2018, within a time

frame to be fixed by this Honorable Court.

For Petitioner

: Mr.G.Sankaran

For Respondents

: Mrs.S.Mythreyechandru

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to

direct the Respondents to pass appropriate orders for allowing fixation of

Selection Grade scale of pay to the Petitioner in the post of Secondary grade

Teacher in the pre-revised scale of pay and consequently allow the

petitioner with fixation of scale of pay in Pay Band-II Rs.9,300-34,800 +

4500GP in Tamil Nadu Revised Pay Scales Rules, 2009, notified in

G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.06.2009 with all

consequential and attendant benefits, by considering the representation

submitted by the Petitioner dated 02.01.2018, within a time frame to be

fixed by this Honorable Court.

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30463 of 2018

2. The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as Secondary

Grade Teacher in St.Philominal's Higher Secondary School, Kulumur

Village, Sendurai Union, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District, which is

an Aided Minority School on 29.10.2006. The appointment of the writ

petitioner was approved by the Education Department. On completion of 10

years of service, Selection Grade was awarded to the petitioner on

29.10.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to St.Ignatius

Primary School, Kokudi, Thirumanur Union, Ariyalur District on

14.03.2007 and the transfer was also approved by the Department. While so,

the petitioner was directly recruited for appointment to the post of

Secondary Grade Teacher in Government Schools. Based on the selection,

he was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Thethur Panchayat

Union Primary School, Margapuri Union, Trichy District on 21.07.2009.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he was receiving

Selection Grade scale of pay in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, when

he was working in the Aided School. While so, the fixation already granted

to the writ petitioner in the Aided School is to be taken into consideration

for re-fixing the scale of pay after his joining in the Government School.

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30463 of 2018

The said contention of the writ petitioner was not considered by the

authorities and thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ

petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the

petitioner submitted an application to p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top