Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

S.Avudaiyappan vs The Director Of School Education

Madras High Court|07 July, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to award the Secondary Grade cadre pay scale and arrears of pay for the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the Higher Grade service, from 30.6.1967 to 26.8.1970, by treating the said service as Secondary Grade Service.
3. It has been stated that the petitioner who was a training qualified Secondary Grade teacher had been posted in the post of Higher Grade Teacher, from 30.6.1967 to 26.8.1970. Later, he had been promoted as a Secondary Grade Teacher, on 27.8.1970. From 27.8.1970 to 13.12.1984, the petitioner had served in Madukkur Panchayat Union in Tanjore District. Thereafter, on 13.12.1984, he had been absorbed into High School, for administrative reasons, while upgrading the Panchayat Union Middle School, Vattakudi North, as a High school. Thereafter, the petitioner had continued in the High School, as a Secondary Grade teacher, without any promotion, till his retirement, on 30.10.1997, on his attaining the age of superannuation. While the petitioner was in service, in Madukkur Panchayat Union, he was allowed to serve as an Elementary School Headmaster, for six months, during the year, 1982. Some of the teachers who were junior to the petitioner were promoted as Elementary School Headmasters and were awarded Selection/Special Grade Elementary School Headmaster pay from 1.6.1988, by counting their earlier Secondary Grade service, as well as their service as Elementary School Headmasters. Therefore, the petitioner, who is senior in the Secondary Grade, is entitled to get Selection/Special Grade Elementary School Headmaster's scale of pay, from 1.6.1988, on par with his juniors in his parent unit of Madukkur Panchayat Union. Since the petitioner is fully qualfiied as a Secondary Grade teacher and had served in the place of Higher Grade Teacher, from 30.6.1967 to 26.8.1970, he is entitled to get the same service benefits, as a Secondary Grade teacher, including the Seniority, Pay arrears, Selection/Special grade, pension and other consequential benefits.
4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court, an order, dated 3.4.2009, passed by this Court, under similar circumstances, in W.P.No.43235 of 2006, wherein it was held as follows:
"3.It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in O.A.Nos.282, 283 and 3441 of 1993 (A.Ilangovan Vs. The Director of Elementary Educational and others), the Hon'ble Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, while considering a similar matter passed the following order:-
"Indeed, there cannot be any intelligible difference between the Secondary Grade Certificate holders served in the Higher Grade place after 1.1.71 or prior to 1.1.71. This is the well settled principle in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Vol.II SC SLJ 498 that equality of opportunity for the purposes of seniority, promotion and like matters of employment is available only for persons who fall subsequently within the same class or unit of service. The fundamental right of equality means that person in like situation under like circumstance are entitled to be treated alike. What is enjoined is that all citizens in matter of service under the State shall be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions. The primary aim is to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for purposeful or invidious discrimination or hostile treatment. The purpose is to ensure similarly and equitable treatment and identity of treatment in matters relating to initial engagement, during continuance of that enjoyment and at the terminal end of that enjoyment. This principle has been laid down in the decision reported in A.I.R. 1957 PAT 617, AIR 1962 SC 36.
The pivotal question in the present case is whether the teacher similarly circumstance in the same class or service or unit are treated alike. The factual position is that the teachers similarly situated in the same class category and unit are treated unequally. In other words, the equals are treated as unequals. Therefore, the question of hostile discrimination will arise. Moreover, in the instant case, fixing the cut off date as 1.1.1971 itself is arbitrary and unreasonable in view of hte decisions reported in 1988 (2) CAT 250 and 1988(3) SLJ 53.
When the Secondary grade qualified teacher service period in the place of Higher Grade is treated as Secondary Grade from 1.1.71 the same should also be extended to the Secondary Grade qualified teacher serving in the Higher grade prior to 1.1.71 also. Otherwise, the same would amount to clear discrimination.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applications are allowed and we direct the respondents to grant secondary grade scale of pay to the applicants for the period of service of the applicants in the Higher Grade place with the Secondary Grade qualification and it be counted as Secondary Grade service for the purpose of seniority, selection/special grade and for promotional opportunities to the higher post. All consequential service and monetary benefits shall be made within two months from the date of receipt of this order, or a copy thereof."
It has been submitted that the said order of this Court had not been challenged and it had become final.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not refuted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.43235 of 2006, dated 3.4.2009, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
csh To
1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
3.The Headmaster, Government High School, Vattakudi (North), Pattukottai TK, Thanjavur District
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

S.Avudaiyappan vs The Director Of School Education

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
07 July, 2009