(Delivered by Huluvadi G.Ramesh,J) The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 05.11.2013 made in W.P.No.8265 of 2007.
2. Heard Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 10.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the second appellant granting monetary benefit from the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.534, Higher Education, dated 19.11.2004, instead of from the date of their appointment to the post of Associate Lecturers/Lecturers or from the date of acquiring the required qualification, the respondents 1 to 10 had filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge, after hearing both the parties, allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to grant benefit from 19.8.1989, namely the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.1081, Education (J-1) Department dated 19.8.1989.
4. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge on the ground that the respondents 1 to 10, who were appointed as Associate Lecturers/Lecturers subsequent to the issue of G.O.Ms.No.1081 dated 19.8.1989, cannot be granted the benefit from the date of issue of the said G.O., namely 19.8.1989, the appellants have come up with this appeal.
5. The respondents 1 to 10 were appointed as Instructors and they have been re-designated as Associate Lecturers/Lecturers on various dates, subsequent to the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.1081 dated 19.8.1989. The dates on which the respondents 1 to 10 have been appointed to the post of Lecturer is presented below, in a tabular form.
6. Admittedly, G.O.Ms.No.1081, Education Department, dated 19.8.1989 states that the then existing Instructors should be promoted as Associate Lecturers/Lecturers as and when they acquired the required qualification. Therefore, it is clear that the pay scale should be fixed as and when the Instructors are promoted either as Associate Lecturers or Lecturers. But, the respondents 1 to 10 were granted the monetary benefit only from the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.534 dated 19.11.2004, instead of the date on which they were promoted.
7. The learned single Judge, after going through the materials placed before him and taking note of the relevant Government Orders and also similar orders passed by this Court, directed the appellants to re-designate the respondents 1 to 10 with effect from 19.8.1989 and to grant them all monetary benefits. But, the learned single Judge failed to take note of one important fact that the respondents 1 to 10 have been re-designated only subsequent to the issue of G.O.Ms.No.1081 dated 19.8.1989 and therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit from 19.8.1989, but they are entitled to the benefit only from the date of their re-designation, as per the dates stated in the tabular column in paragraph 5.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part, modifying the order of the learned single Judge to the extent that the respondents 1 to 10 are entitled to the fixation of pay and monetary benefits only from the date of their taking charge in the re-designated post of Associate Lecturer/Lecturer and not from the date of the issue of G.O.Ms.No.1081 dated 19.8.1989. There shall be no order as to costs.
Index : Yes/No (H.G.R.J.) (T.K.R.J.) Internet: Yes/No 05.4.2017 kpl HULUVADI G.RAMESH,J, and RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN,J kpl W.A.No.1391 of 2014. 05.4.2017. http://www.judis.nic.in