IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.02.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.Nos.1177, 1178 and 1179 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2014 and W.M.P.Nos.29230, 29231 and 29232 of 2016 V.Ganesan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.1177 of 2014 P.Chandramoorthi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.1178 of 2014 A.Nalini .. Petitioner in W.P.No.1179 of 2014 vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (C2) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.
3. Nachimuthu Polytechnic College, rep.by its Principal in Charge, Makkinaickanpatti P.O.
Pollachi – 642 003. .. Respondents in all the above Writ Petitions.
Writ Petition No.1177 of 2014 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records from the 3rd respondent relating to the order dated 22.11.2013 bearing Reference No.B2/63/2012, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to continue to pay the Grade Pay of Rs.7,000/- as before from the date of the petitioner had completed 9 years of service i.e. w.e.f. 1.12.2006 together with arrears. [Prayer amended as per the order of this Court dated 23.2.2017 made in M.P.No.2 of 2014 in W.P.No.1177 of 2014] Writ Petition No.1178 of 2014 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records from the 3rd respondent relating to the order dated 22.11.2013 bearing Reference No.B2/63/2012, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to continue to pay the Grade Pay of Rs.7,000/- as before from the date of the petitioner had completed 9 years of service i.e. w.e.f. 1.9.2008 together with arrears.
Writ Petition No.1179 of 2014 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records from the 3rd respondent relating to the order dated 22.11.2013 bearing Reference No.B2/63/2012, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to continue to pay the Grade Pay of Rs.7,000/- as before from the date of the petitioner had completed 9 years of service i.e. w.e.f. 8.5.2009 together with arrears.
For petitioner in all the above WPs : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy for M/s.Row and Reddy For respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.V.Ayyathurai in all the above WPs Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.Navaneethan, Additional Government Pleader For 3rd respondent in all the above WPs : Mr.D.Balaraman
COMMON ORDER
The case of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions is that they were appointed as Lecturers and subsequently, they were were upgraded as Senior Lecturers in the third respondent Polytechnic College. Later, G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 25.5.2010 was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu revising the Pay Scales to the Government and Government Aided Polytechnic College Teachers as per All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) Notification in the Gazette of India dated 5.3.2010. As per this Government Order, the revised Pay Scale would take notional effect from 01.01.2006 and monetary benefit from 01.01.2007. The Academic Grade Pay of Rs.7,000/- was the corresponding AGP to the post of Senior Lecturers and the pre- revised pay structure corresponding to the said post. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government Order, the 3rd respondent-Principal revised the Scale of Pay. Thereafter, the third respondent issued an Order bearing Ref.No.B2/63/2012 dated 22.11.2013 reducing the pay of the petitioners retrospectively, without any notice being issued to the petitioners. The petitioners made requests to the respondents to refix the Academic Grade Pay at Rs.8,000/- as and when they complete 5 years or more than 5 years of service on or after 01.01.2006 counting the period of service from the date of award of corresponding pre- revised Senior Scale of Rs.10,000-325-15200 and also to fix the AGP of Rs.9,000/- after the completion of 3 years in the AGP of Rs.8,000/- designating as Lecturer (Selection Grade). These requests were not considered by the respondents. Hence, the present Writ Petitions have been filed before this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
3. Among other things, it is specifically submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in an identical case, where a similarly placed Lecturer, namely, D.Subramanian, preferred a Writ Petition, viz., W.P.No.19592 of 2010 before this Court seeking similar relief as sought for in the present Writ Petitions and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition while setting aside the impugned order passed by the third respondent therein with a direction to the the third respondent to get clarification from the second respondent therein as to the scope and applicability of the Clarification issued by the Government vide Letter No.5928/H1/2010-3 dated 13.8.2010, wherein it was clarified by the Government that "movement from AGP of Rs.7,000 to AGP of Rs.8,000/- may be allowed after completion of 5 years of service from the date of award of senior scale and not after 5 years period in the AGP of Rs.7,000/- shall be accepted subject to the other requirements laid down by the UGC or conditions laid down by the State Government/Universities". Subsequently, the All India Council for Technical Education vide Notification dated 4.1.2016 vide the Gazette of India dated 6.1.2016, at Page 28, clarified the same thing, which is as follows.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the clarification issued by the AICTE, the third respondent shall refix the AGP as stated in the clarification.
4. Additional Counter Affidavit dated 21.02.2017 has been filed by the second respondent wherein it is stated that, based on the aforesaid clarification, by Letter No.1495/A3/2013, dated 9.3.2016, the second respondent has recommended for taking into account of the earlier services rendered by the teaching staff for Grade Pay movement from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- and the same is under consideration before the first respondent.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General reiterating the said averments made in the Additional Counter Affidavit submitted that the second respondent is awaiting orders from the Government to implement the aforesaid clarification issued by the AICTE.
6. Taking into consideration of the above facts and recording the above said submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court directs the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in the light of the clarification Notification dated 6.1.2016 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education and Letter No.1495/A3/2013 dated 9.3.2016 addressed by the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. By consent of the parties, the impugned order passed by the third respondent College is kept in abeyance till an order is passed by the first respondent as directed. Thereafter, it is open to the petitioners to approach the third respondent for necessary claim.
7. In result, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, with the above direction. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
Index : Yes / no 23.02.2017 Internet: yes /no asvm D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.
3. The Principal In Charge, Nachimuthu Polytechnic College, Makkinaickanpatti P.O.
Pollachi – 642 003.
(asvm) W.P.Nos.1177, 1178 and 1179 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2014 and W.M.P.Nos.29230, 29231 and 29232 of 2016 23.02.2017