The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 23.04.2008 made in Na.Ka.No.10050/A2/08, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to confer selection grade in the cadre of Assistant treating the selection grade period of Junior Assistant with all consequential and attendant benefits.
2. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Department of Prison on 21.11.1979. After the exam conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, he was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Department of Education on 02.01.1981. It is stated that he was offered selection grade as Junior Assistant on 16.03.1990 and was promoted as Assistant on 12.01.1994 and was subsequently promoted as upgraded Superintendent on 20.04.2001 and retired on superannuation on 30.06.2006.
3. On 05.07.2006, the petitioner states to have sent a representation to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District to confer selection grade in the cadre of Assistant counting the selection grade service of Junior Assistant as per G.O.210. The said request was rejected by the second respondent by proceedings dated 05.09.2006.
4. Assailing the said order dated 05.09.2006, the petitioner sent a representation on 23.09.2006 to the first respondent stating that the persons who are similarly placed like the petitioner, in particular Thangamani, Kulasekaran and Henry, who retired on 31.08.2006, were conferred with benefits of awarding selection grade in the cadre of Assistant counting the selection grade service of Junior Assistant.
5. However, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 23.04.2008, rejected the request of the petitioner. Assailing the said order, the present writ petition is filed for the relief stated supra.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner has specifically alleged in his representation that similarly placed persons have been granted benefits, while the petitioner has been denied, the first respondent, without assigning any reasons, by merely referring to Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Pay Fixation Rules, rejected the request of the petitioner and such discriminatory treatment of the petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. On the contrary, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents reiterated the reasons that weighed with the respondent authorities in passing the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. I heard Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the documents available on record.
9. As per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.210, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S.), dated 11.03.1987, the services in the selection grade of the lower post shall be counted for awarding selection grade in the higher post provided, the selection grade scale of pay of the lower post and the ordinary grade scale of pay of the post of the higher post are identical.
10. When there is a specific government order directing the services in the selection grade of the lower post to be counted for awarding selection grade in the higher post, this Court finds no reason for denying such benefit to the petitioner. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondent authorities that the selection grade scale of pay of the lower post and the ordinary grade scale of pay of the post of the higher post are not identical.
11. That apart, the specific allegation of the petitioner that Thangamani, Kulasekaran and Henry, who are similarly placed, were granted such benefit, whereas the petitioner was denied such benefit. The respondents neither in the impugned order nor in the counter affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has refuted the argument advanced by the petitioner. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that there is discrimination finds force.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed: i. the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.10050/A2/08 dated 23.04.2008 passed by the first respondent; ii. the respondents are directed to confer the selection grade in the cadre of Assistant treating the selection grade period of Junior Assistant with all consequent and other attendant benefits to the petitioner; iii.the respondents are directed to complete the said exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv.No costs.
To
1. The Director of Elementary Education, Directorate of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
.