Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs M.S.Gomathi on 2 January, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 2301
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.A.No.2793 of 2018
and
CMP No.23106 of 2018
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
2.The Director, Elementary School Education
College Road
Chennai - 600 006
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer
Virudhunagar District ... Appellants
Vs.
M.S.Gomathi ... Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the Order dated 29.07.2015 made in W.P.No.2982 of 2015.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Munusamy
Spl. Govt. Pleader (Education)
-----
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGEMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J) Challenge in this writ appeal is to an order of the writ court dated 29.07.2015 made in W.P.No.2982 of 2015, by which, the writ court, directed that the writ petitioner's father shall be granted selection grade/special grade pay in the post of Middle School Headmaster, by counting the service rendered as Secondary Grade Teacher/Primary School Headmaster/Elementary School Headmaster, from the date of his promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster, if he was not given the same already, with all monetary benefits and the pensionary benefits with arrears till the date of his death, and the benefits shall be given to the writ petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are that, father of the writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Higher Grade Teacher on 3.6.1957 in Hindu Primary School, N.Kumarapuram, Sathur Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District, which is a private aided school. On 1.4.1974, he was promoted as Secondary Grade Teacher and posted as Primary School Headmaster. The said school was taken over by the Panchayat Union and all the teachers including writ petitioner's father M.Subburaj was absorbed as Panchayat Union http://www.judis.nic.in Teachers, in Sathur Panchayat Union. In Panchayat Union service, writ 3 petitioner's father was promoted as B.Ed. Middle School Headmaster on 11.6.1980. While working as B.Ed. Middle School Headmaster, Panchayat Union Middle School, O.Mettupatti, in Sathur Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District, her father retired on 31.07.1992. By counting the service rendered as Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster by extending the benefit of G.O. Ms. No.210 dated 14.8.2009, Selection and Special Grade scale of pay was not granted to her father in the post of Middle School Headmaster.
3. She further submitted that her father died on 13.3.2005 leaving her and her sister, as his legal heirs. As one of the legal heirs, she is entitled for the monetary benefits, due to her father in the matter of pay fixation, by applying G.O. Ms. No.210 dated 14.8.2009.
The legal heir certificate granted by the Tahsildar is dated 29.4.2005.
4. According to her, the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, Primary School Headmaster and Middle School Headmaster were treated as interchangeable and transferable till 1.10.1970. The post of Middle School Headmaster became a promotional post with effect from 1.10.1970 on awarding higher scale of pay, as per the recommendations of the second pay commission from 1.10.1970.
Since the said post became a promotional post, seniority in the cadre http://www.judis.nic.in 4 of Secondary Grade Teacher is relevant for making promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster as per Section 22 of the Panchayat Union Establishment Rules, which stipulates that any promotion shall be made on the ground of seniority. But the government did not follow the seniority. Therefore number of writ petitions were filed before this Court, by seniors seeking promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster on 1.10.1970 and this court ordered that promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster should be made only by way of seniority from 1.10.1970. Consequent to the orders of this court, the government followed the seniority in the post of Middle School Headmasters from 01.10.1970, which resulted in reversion of juniors from the post of Middle School Headmasters who were holding the post as on 1.10.1970 and promotion of seniors as Middle School Headmasters from 1.10.1970. The above said situation gave rise to number of litigations before this court and as well as issue of several government orders in respect of Middle School Headmaster.
Ultimately, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.784 dated 14.5.1979 by which it was ordered that promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster should be made as per the seniority in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher from 1.10.1970; that the Secondary Grade Teachers who were holding the post of Middle School Headmaster as on 1.10.1970 and seniors enough to continue in the post, shall be entitled to continue and that the Junior Secondary Grade Teachers http://www.judis.nic.in 5 should be reverted from the post of Middle School Headmaster from 1.6.1979 with pay protection and they would be posted either as Primary School Headmaster or as a Secondary Grade Teacher and that the seniors should be promoted as Middle School Headmaster.
5. She further submitted that since the post of Middle School Headmaster, Primary School Headmaster and Secondary Grade Teacher were treated as one and the same, on the ground that all the said posts were carrying the same scale of pay, a question arose as to how to fix the pay in the cadre of selection grade and the special grade, in the post of Middle School Headmaster, as the service rendered in the above said posts before 01.10.1970 cannot be ignored for the purpose of pay fixation. The government by G.O. Ms. No.65 dated 11.1.1979 ordered for counting of secondary grade teacher service also for the purpose of fixing selection and special grades scales of pay in the post of Middle School Headmaster.
Thereafter the Government by G.O. Ms. No.1178 dated 11.12.1993, ordered that the Secondary Grade Teachers who were holding the post of Middle School Headmasters or as Middle School Headmasters with pay protection, are entitled for Selection Grade and Special Grade Scale of Pay on completion of minimum period of 10/20 of service irrespective of whether 10 years of service in Selection Grade is completed or not in the post of Middle School Headmaster. The http://www.judis.nic.in 6 above said government order further stated that the Middle School Headmasters who were holding the post of Middle School Headmasters prior to 1.10.1970 and after 1.10.1970 shall also be allowed the above Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay taking into account the total service in the post of Middle School Headmaster. The earlier part of the G.O. would mean that the service rendered in Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Head Master post, after reversion from the post of Middle School Headmaster can be taken together for pay, in the post of Middle School Headmaster, who are holding the post as on 1.10.1970. The second part of the GO stipulates that the above Selection Grade and Special Grade can also be allowed in respect of Middle School Headmasters who were holding the post prior to 1.10.1970 and after 1.10.1970 would further mean that the service rendered as Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster can also be taken together for the purpose of pay fixation in Middle School Headmaster. But the controversy as to whether service rendered as Secondary Grade Teacher as well as Primary School Headmaster shall be taken together for the purpose of pay fixation in the post of Middle School Headmaster was settled and the government orders were interpreted in various ways.
6. She further submitted that ultimately, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 17.4.2002 in O.A. No.3521 of http://www.judis.nic.in 7 1997 etc. held that the service rendered as Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster prior to 1.6.1988 shall be taken together for the purpose of Selection Grade and Special Grade fixation, in the post of Middle School Headmaster and such benefit can be granted from 1.6.1988 onwards. The order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal referred to above has been confirmed by this Court in W.P. No.29626/2005 dated 15.09.2005. But the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O. Ms. No.210 Education Department dated 14.8.2009, limited the benefit of the order of the Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by this Court only to 65 Middle School Headmasters who approached the Administrative Tribunal and have not extended the benefit of the order of the court to other Middle School Headmaster like the petitioner's father, who were similarly placed. G.O. Ms. No.210 dated 14.8.2009 is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal referred to above is a judgment in rem and that the same is applicable to all the persons, who are similarly placed. Therefore, restoration of benefits is discriminatory and the deceased Government Servant, petitioner's father is entitled for the extension of the benefits given in G.O. Ms. No.210 dated 14.8.2009. On the above facts she filed W.P. No.2982 of 2015.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
7. Before the writ court, on behalf of the respondents, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that
i) the averment made in the 5th paragraph of the petitioner affidavit challenging G.O. Ms. No.210 (G1) dated 14.08.2009 to acquire the benefit for the petitioner father and to get it being a legal heir is not correct, according to the statement made in the 5th paragraph several cases were filed as writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court and also the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. But the case was filed by 65 petitioners for which in its order dated 17.4.2002 in O.A. No.3521 of 1997 which was referred to this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.29626/2005 dated 15.9.2005, clearly states that several petitioners like petitioner's father are relying on G.O. Ms. No.210, School Education Department dated 14.8.2009 and G.O. Ms. No.190 School Education Department dated 12.7.2010 seeking the present prayer. By way of G.O. Ms. No.210 the government had taken policy decision and ordered that to compute the year of services rendered as secondary grade teacher and Primary School Headmaster prior to 1.6.1988 to award selection grade and special grade to those teachers who were promoted as Headmaster of middle school on or aftr 1.6.1988. But the benefit was restricted to only 65 middle school Headmaster who approached the Tribunal and the court and obtained favourable orders. Several teachers of similar kind and non-similar kind Headmasters have filed several writ petitions by seeking to extend the benefit of G.O. Ms. No.210 to them also as claim made here by petitioner for her father. The Hon'ble Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court had taken different views. The writ appeals http://www.judis.nic.in and review petitions filed by the individuals and education 9 department are pending disposal before this court.
ii) it is necessary to state that recently the State Government as a one time measure issued a fresh government order in G.O. Ms. No.146, School Education Department dated 19.6.2012, wherein, the State Government had availed the benefit of 260 persons who have got similar relief from the court and also confined the relief from the court and also confined the relief to the persons who have retired from 1.6.1988 to 30.9.1994 will be eligible for the benefit. Petitioner's father doesn't come herein within the purview of G.O. Ms. No.146 and hence he is not eligible to get the benefits granted under those Government Orders;
iii) after the implementation of the above said policy decision and on the strength of the same, the State Government preferred appeals and review petitions before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, which are still pending for final disposal. In terms of all those government orders referred above, the petitioner is not at all entitled for the benefits and moreover petitioner is not at all entitled for the benefit granted therein because, admittedly, the petitioner failed to fulfill the necessary conditions leveled in G.O. Ms. No.146. hence the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of G.Os on par with other middle school headmasters who are entitled in terms of the government orders.
iv) in the case on the hand, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and thereby seeking to extend benefit under G.O. Ms. No.210 dated 14.8.2009 without understanding the basis of G.O. Ms. No.146 dated 19.6.2012. As earlier stated, in order to implement the order of this Hon'ble Court, the State Government has already http://www.judis.nic.in been facing heavy financial crisis. It is settled law that if the 10 State Government is under financial crunch and to get over from that if the government issued any policy decision, which cannot be challenged. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the consideration of the Apex Court about the financial burden of the State Government, which made in State of Orissa vs. Aswinkumar Dash reported in 1998 (3) SCC 613 as follows:
"The State Government also framed a scheme for such grant-in-aid considering its own finances, resources and the number of educational institutions to which it was required to give such grant. Accepting the stand of the State of Orissa, the Supreme Court has held that no educational institution can claim grant-in-aid as a matter of right. This is a matter of policy, which the State Government will decided looking to its financial capacity and other relevant circumstances."
Their Lordships have further held that, since the entire burden of providing grant-in-aid is now on the State, the State may regulate, by policy, the extend of aid and the colleges to which it will be given.
v) as earlier mentioned, to get over from the financial burden, the State Government took policy decisions by restricting the benefits of the earlier government orders and to that effect issued a fresh policy decision in G.O. Ms. No.146 dated 19.6.2012. It is also well settled law that policy decision must not be challenged and the Hon'ble court of Law may considerably not be interfered with. At this point of time, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court is needed to be extracted as follows: In Narmada Bachao and Olan vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (10) SCC 664;
"It is well settled that the courts, in exercise of their http://www.judis.nic.in jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy 11 decision whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The courts, no doubt, have a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extend, permissible under the constitution"
vi) from the above circumstances and cases referred the petitioner claim doesn't maintainable herein as the petitioner's father does not come into the purview leveled under G.O. Ms. No.146 dated 19.6.2012 for the purpose of pay fixation in the post of Middle School Headmaster service rendered as Secondary Grade Teacher who has not confined the relief sought from the Hon'ble Court and retired from 1.6.1988 to 30.9.1994 and grant arrears of pay and to revise the pension and grant consequential arrears of pension to the petitioner as a legal heir not maintainable herein.
8. Based on the pleadings and submission of the parties, writ court vide a common order dated 29.7.2015 made in W.P. Nos.2982 of 2015 granted the relief sought for, by the petitioner therein.
Relevant portion of the order reads thus:
4. Later, some of the petitioners in the batch filed W.P.No.29626 of 2005 and 29624 of 2005 seeking for implementation of the order of the Tribunal, which attained finality and this Court by the order dated 15.09.2005 directed the respondents therein to implement the order. The said order was also confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.No.223 http://www.judis.nic.in on 21.04.2008.12
5.Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department, dated 14.08.2009, for counting the service rendered as Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster before 01.06.1988 for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade / Special Grade pay to Middle School Headmaster, in respect of the petitioners in those Original Applications, who became Middle School Headmaster before 01.06.1988.
6. Thus, if one joined as Secondary Grade Teacher before 01.10.1970, such person is entitled to Selection Grade / Special Grade Pay, on his promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster, by counting the service rendered in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher / Primary School Headmaster. That is, it is made clear that such person shall be granted Selection Grade / Special Grade Pay in the post of Middle School Headmaster on his promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster.
7. In this case, the petitioner's father was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 03.06.1957. Subsequently, he was promoted as B.Ed. Middle School Headmaster on 11.06.1980. He retired from service on 31.07.1992.
8. The Teachers are entitled to Selection Grade / Special Grade pay in the post of Middle School Headmaster, from the date of promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster, by counting the service of Secondary Grade Teachers/Primary School Headmasters, if they joined before 01.10.1970. The petitioner's father herein became Middle School Headmaster on 11.06.1980 and he is entitled to Selection Grade/Special Grade from the date of his promotion as Middle School Headmaster, by counting the service as Secondary Grade Teacher/Primary School Headmaster and accordingly he is also entitled to revision of pay in the http://www.judis.nic.in Selection Grade/Special Grade in the post of Middle School 13 Headmaster from 01.06.1988 based on G.O.Ms.No.210, dated 14.08.2009, as there was pay revision with effect from 01.06.1988.
9. In my view, the petitioner's father is entitled to seek Selection Grade / Special Grade in the post of Middle School Headmaster by counting the service of Secondary Grade Teacher / Primary School Headmaster from the date on which he was promoted as Middle School Headmaster.
10. In view of the aforesaid narration of facts, the petitioner's father is entitled to Selection Grade / Special Grade pay in the post of Middle School Headmaster with effect from the date of promotion as Middle School Headmaster.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner's father shall be granted Selection Grade / Special Grade pay in the post of Middle School Headmaster, by counting the service rendered as Secondary Grade Teacher/Primary School Headmaster/Elementary School Headmaster, from the date of his promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster, if he was not given the same already, with all monetary benefits and the pensionary benefits with arrears till the date of his death, and the benefits shall be given to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the light of the aforesaid direction.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, instant writ appeal has been filed, on the following grounds:
i) Writ court ought not to have allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to pay monetary benefits i.e. arrears of pay to the respondents on the date of http://www.judis.nic.in promotion to the post of Middle School Head master, 14 pursuant and to grant of Special Grade in the post of Middle School Headmaster;
ii) Writ court ought not to have considered the fact that the writ petitioner's father was appointed as a Higher Grade Teachers, prior to 1.10.1970 and subsequently regularised in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1973 and the date, 1.10.1970 has no relevance to the prayer made by the writ petitioner;
iii) Government have issued G.O. Ms. No.210 dated 14.8.2009 and given the benefit by counting both the services Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster for the persons those who were holding the post of Middle School Headmaster as on 1.6.88 shall alone be given the benefit. But in the instant case, the respondent's father was promoted as middle school HM;
iv) Writ court ought to have considered the fact that the Middle School Headmasters were awarded Higher Scale of pay in the year 2.10.1970. the writ petitioner's father had availed all the benefits in the post of Middle School Headmaster after the implementation of pay commission in the year 1/1/1996. The question of anomaly does not arise. Similarly placed persons were awarded selection grade/special grade in the post of primary school HM, and hence awarding of selection grade and special grade by counting the earlier service is amounting to double benefit to the writ petitioners.
v) Writ court failed to consider the fact that G.O. 210 School Education dated 14.8.2009 has been passed only in order to implement the order in W.P. No.29626 of 2005 and 29624 of 2005 dated 15.9.2005, which was confirmed by Hon'ble Division Bench, vide order dated 21.4.2008 in W.A. No.233 of 2008. Since the Government order specifies that it http://www.judis.nic.in is applicable only to 65 teachers, the same is not applicable 15 to the writ petitioner's father and therefore the writ petitioner cannot claim the said benefits;
vi) Writ court failed to consider the fact that as per the said G.O. 210 dated 14.8.2009 those who have been working as a middle school headmasters as on 1.6.88 their pay alone has to be fixed as per the 5th Pay commission. But none of the writ petitioners have worked as Middle School Headmaster as on 1.6.1988, whereas the petitioner's father does not come under the category, since he never worked as a Middle School Headmaster, at the relevant point of time i.e. 1.6.88 and he cannot take shelter under the said G.O. 210 at the distant point of time. Writ petitioner is not by laches;
vii) Writ court failed to appreciate the fact that G.O. Ms. No.210 dated 14.8.2009 has been issued for those who were under as Middle School Headmasters as on 1.6.1988 and the learned Judge has erroneously fixed the cut-off dated as 1.10.1970 since there was no person in the post of Middle School Headmaster during the specific period. Hence the Higher Grade post was upgraded as Secondary Grade post on 1.1.1971 as per G.O. Ms. No.347 School Education, dated 15.9.1998;
viii) Writ court failed to appreciate the fact that as per the Government Letter in No.168/98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 28.9.1999 said "the services rendered by the employee in the Selection Grade/Special Grade/Special temporary post of the loser post having identical or Higher scales for the purpose of awarding Selection Grade in promotion post be extended to all employees irrespective of whether in the First level promotion of not but limited to only once in the Service period" in concern it is made clear that the employee whose http://www.judis.nic.in services rendered in the Selection Grade of the Lower Post 16 be extended irrespective of whether they are in the first level promotion or not but limited only once in their service period. Since the petitioner has already granted with selection/special grade during the period, where they were promoted in the post of primary school Headmaster.
ix) Writ court failed to consider the fact that G.O. Ms. No.210 School Education dated 14.8.2009 is not a common order issued to all the persons and it is specific Government order issued to 65 persons and each case has to be looked into with regard to their service particulars. The writ petitioner cannot seek for any monetary benefits that too public money, which otherwise not entitled. Seeking for a relief that the petitioner's father should be given special grade, as per Government order 210 is unsustainable;
x) Writ court could have considered the fact that the question of counting the period does not arise in this case. Government have given the relief for eligible persons and the same was extended till 31.12.1995. The writ petitioner's father is not eligible for the benefits under the Government Order No.210 dated 14.8.2009, because he has not worked as Middle School HM, as on 1.6.1988;
xi) Writ court could have considered the fact that the person should be Middle School HM as on 1.6.1988 for counting the prior service of secondary grade, as well as primary school headmaster, whereas all petitioners were holding the post of middle school headmaster only after 1.1.1996 by way of promotion and therefore the petitioner's father never came under the category of the said Government order No.210 dated 14.08.2009 and he cannot avail the benefits of the said government order.
xii) Writ court has not considered the fact that if the order of the learned Judge is implemented, it will pave way http://www.judis.nic.in for opening of flood gates of litigation by similarly placed 17 persons, putting the State in heavy financial burden. Further, it will unsettle the settled issue.
10. As no adverse order is passed in the writ appeal against the respondent, notice to the respondent is waived. Heard Mr.C.Munusamy, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) and perused the material available on record.
11. Government Orders relevant for the disposal of the writ appeal, are as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU Abstract Elementary Education - Certified as Secondary Grade Teacher and those teachers appointed as Higher Teachers, with effect from 1.1.71 or from the date of appointment, to appoint as Secondary Grade Teacher, order issued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.O.(S) No.347 15.9.98
To Read
1. G.O.(S) No.287, Education, date 20.2.71.
2. Letter by the Director of Elementary Education, in Na.Ka. 64648/Ed1/90, date 27.7.94 (&) 29.3.97.
------------
ORDER In Government Standing order No.1355, Education dated 3.8.1967, to improve the standard at the Primary schools, the Government ordered to appoint additional of Secondary Grade Teachers in all schools, for which the Government intended the teachers who had obtained secondary grade were absorbed as http://www.judis.nic.in Higher Teachers. Due to this about 14,000 Higher Teachers Posts 18 existed during 1967-68 to 1970-71, and step by step it was converted as Secondary Grade Teachers post.
2. The Director of School Education in the year 1971, had informed that about 5,500 secondary grade teachers are serving in the post of Higher Teachers on that basis, in the year 1971, instead of the posts of 5,500 Higher teachers, the post of Secondary grade teachers of 5,500 was surrendered and order was issued in G.O. standing No.207, Education dated 20.2.71. However, the post of those qualified Secondary grade teachers, the post of Higher grade could not be converted as qualified Secondary Grade Teachers and it was left out.
3. From 1.1.71 to 2.10.73, even if they have secured Secondary grade teacher qualification and having served in the post of Higher Teachers, the 240 teachers of Adidravidar Welfare school, was directed to regularise their service with effect from 1.1.71 or from the date of appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher and to grant salary accordingly, vide Govt., Standing Order No.119, date 20.6.95 Adidravidar Welfare Department Orders were issued. In the Education Department also. Those all the qualified Secondary grade teachers as Higher Teachers, to be accepted, and with effect from 1.1.71 as Secondary Grade Teachers upon such claim various petitions were filed before Tamilnadu State Administrative Tribunal, and order was also passed.
4. The Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in view of the subject matter adduced therein has passed various orders in the following manner:-
(1) The service of Secondary Grade Teachers to be regularized and the arrears to be paid with effect from 1.1.71.
(2) The teachers to be regularized from 1.1.71 and the arrears to be paid from the date of receipt of this order of this http://www.judis.nic.in court.19
(3) The money benefit to be disbursed to the teachers from the date of their application.
(4) The monetary benefits to be disbursed from the date of appointment of these teachers.
Thus various orders was passed by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in this manner in order to secure a clear order from the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, the Director of Elementary Education, a Review application was filed.
5. As per the report of the Director of Elementary Education as from 1.1.71 to till .........74 served in the Higher Grade the number of qualified Secondary Grade teachers is about 6000, and that from 1.1.71 to regularize them as Secondary grade teachers the expenses incurred thereby is about Rs.3.25 crores which the government comes to know.
6. At this juncture, the certified Secondary Grade Teachers appointed in the post of Higher Grade, the service of such teachers to be regularised as Secondary Grade teachers with effect from 1.1.71 or from the date of appointment. To take immediate steps to disburse the salary arrears to this post, this claim of the teachers was carefully considered by the Government. After careful consideration it was decided to accept, in view of the said decision all those certified Secondary Grade Teachers recruited as Higher Grade Teachers, with effect from 1.1.71 or from their date of appointment, that comes subsequently, from the said date, their service is regularized as Secondary Grade Teacher, from the date of such regularisation, the government issued to disburse the arrears, thus due to such predated regularisation of the service, as per the seniority already fixed those got promotion, this promotion will not be affected. Hereinafter in future if any vacancy arises, to grant promotion the amended seniority alone should be taken up for consideration, which is instructed by the Government. This http://www.judis.nic.in Government order is applicable to all the teachers formerly served 20 at panchayat union schools, and now serving at High Schools, Government Aided Schools, Municipality schools.
7. Further the review application filed by the Director of School Education before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal regarding this subject, The Director of School Education is instructed to take steps to withdraw all the review applications.
8. To implement this Government order, it is instructed to the Director of School Education and Director of Elementary Education to take appropriate steps in this regard.
9. In view of the Expenses incurred due to this Government order, it may be kept under the same head of account that is disbursed towards the salary of the teachers which has been already carried.
10. The required funds will be allowed under the revised valuation of the year 1998-99, the final revised valuation will be made. On expecting this allocation of funds the Director of Elementary Education is allowed to carry out abovesaid expenses. Furthr while forwarding for the proposals of project valuation/final project valuation, the above said expenses should be taken in account, which is insisted to the Director of Elementary Education.
11. This Government order is issued with approval of the Finance Department in U.O.M.No.530/SS/98-1/Edn-11, dated 11.9.98.
// BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR// Sd/M.A.Gowrisankar Secy. to Govt., GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT http://www.judis.nic.in Elementary Education - Panchayat Union Schools - Awarding of 21 Special Grade and Fixation of pay in the scale of pay of Rs.2200- 75-2800-100-4000 to 65 Middle School Graduate Headmasters counting their service rendered on 01.06.88 in the Post of Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Head Master, subject to the outcome of the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal/High Court - Orders issued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL EDUCATION (G1) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.210 Dated: 14.08.2009
Thiruvalluvar-Aandu 2040
Adi-29.
Read:-
1. Orders of the Tamil Naud Administrative Tribunal, Chennai - 600 104, dated 17.04.2002 in O.A.Nos.3521, 3528, 3530, 3532, 3540, 3541, 3543,3547,3550, 3552, 3781, 3782, 3783, 3784, 3785, 3786, 3787, 3788, 3789, 3829, 3830, 3831, 3832, 3965, 7706, 7714, 8736, 8740, 8742, 8743, 8746, 8996, 8999, 9002, 9003, 9494, 9495, 9498, 9499, 9875, 9883, and 9885/1997; 857, 858, 914, 1292, 1350, 1458, 1580, 1696, 2927, 2934, 2935, 3374, 3375, 4620, 4888, 6027 and 6415/1998; 472, 966 and 2181/1999 and 6378 and 7304/2000.
2. Orders of the High Court, Madras in W.P.No.29626/2005 dated 15.09.2005 and W.P.No.29624/2005 dated 15.09.2005.
3. M.P.No.1/2008 and W.A.S.R.No.79248/2007 dated 23.04.2008 of the High Court, Madras.
4. Writ Appeal No.233/2008 and M.P.No.1/2008 dated 21.04.2008 of the High Court, Madras.
5. The Director of Elementary Education Letter Na. Ka. No.25368/L1/2008 dated 28.11.2008 and 04.02.2009.
ORDER:-
http://www.judis.nic.in Based on the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, 22 65 Middle School Graduate Headmasters filed Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying award of Special Grade and Fixation of pay in the scale of pay of Rs.2200- 75-2800-100-4000 counting their service rendered prior to 01.06.88 (upto 31.05.1988) in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and Middle School Headmasters. Pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal in the above case and the order of the High Court, Madras in the cases filed by certain Teachers for implementation of the Tribunal order, the Director of Elementary Education requested appropriate orders as per the 5th Pay Commission recommendations, grant of Special Grade and Fixation of pay in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 from 01.06.88 to the 65 Middle School Graduate Headmasters only by counting their service rendered prior to 01.06.88 (up to 31.05.1988) in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster.
2. The Government have carefully examined the proposal of the Director of Elementary Education in Para 1 above, and permit him/her to award, Special Grade as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission and fix the pay in the scale of pay Rs.2200-
75-2800-100-4000 from 01.06.88 to the 65 Middle School graduate Headmasters, who obtained Judgment from the Tribunal, by counting their service rendered prior to 01.06.88 in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster (upto 31.05.1988).
3. This order is issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its U.O.No.218/JS (APA)/Education .II/2009 dated 12.08.2008.
(By Order of the Governor) M.Kutralingam Principal Secretary to Government GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT http://www.judis.nic.in 23 Elementary Education - Panchayat Union Schools - Service period to be accounted in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and Headmasters of Elementary Schools, as on 01.06.1988 in the post of BT Headmaster of Middle School - Permission granted for fixing of pay in the Special Grade - Order issued.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
School Education (G1) Department
G.O.Ms.No.190 Date: 12.07.2010
Thiruvalluvar
Aandu 2041
Aani 28.
Read:
1. G.O.(Ms) No.210, School Education (G1) dept., date 14.08.2009.
2. Letter by the Director of Elementary Education in Na.Ka.No.38250/L1/09, date 13.11.09 and 29.12.09.
-----------
ORDER With reference to the 1st read above in the Government order, the 65 BT Head masters of Middle school having filed petition before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and obtained an order, they prior to 01.061988, having served as Secondary grade teacher and Headmaster of Primary school, the entire service period in the said post (Till 31.05.1988) to accounted and on 01.06.1988 as per the recommendation of 5th Pay commission, on that basis from 01,06.1988 the Special grade granted to BT headmasters of Middle School, and the pay in the pay scale of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 in the Special grade of BT Headmasters of Middle school is fixed and permission is granted to the Director of Elementary education and ordered issued.
2. In continuation of the above said Government order, many headmasters sought to extend this benefit for them also and has filed petitions and obtained an order in their favour. In order to implement the said order, they have filed contempt http://www.judis.nic.in applications and further as petitions are being filed, in order to 24 dispose of those cases. Those who have filed petitioners and those who have not filed petitions to all the BT Headmasters of the Middle Schools, with reference to the 1st read in the Government order, the benefit mentioned therein is extended prior to 1.06.1988, all the service period (Till 31.5.1988) is accounted and from 01.08.1988 onwards, the Special grade is granted to the Headmasters of Middle School, to fix the pay in the pay scale of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 to Selection grade BT Headmasters of the Middle Schools and requested the Government to issue an appropriate order which is referred in the letter 2nd read above by the Director of Elementary Education.
3. On adducing the proposal of the Director of Elementary Education, the Government has carefully considered it, in this occasion, on considering the financial burden to be borne by the government, till the date of issuance of this order, it is restricted to those person who have got specific order of the Court, with reference to the 1st read above in the Government order, as mentioned therein prior to 01.06.1988, having served as Secondary grade teacher, and Headmasters of the Primary school their service period (till 31.5.1988) to accounted as on 01.06.1988 as per the recommendation of 5th pay Commission, on that basis from 01.06.1988 onwards Special grade is granted in the post of BT Headmasters of Middle School, and permission is granted to the Director of Elementary Education to fix the pay for the Special Grade in the post Of BT Head Masters of Middle school in the Pay scale of 2200-75-2800-100-4000 and government issues order.
4. This order is issued with the consent of the Financial Department under U.O. No.35680/Education -1/2010, Dated 08.07.2010.
// BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR// http://www.judis.nic.in M.Kulralingam 25 Prl Secy to Govt., GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Elementary Education - orders of the High Court - those served as Head masters of Primary Schools and Head masters of Middle Schools, Secondary grade teachers prior to 01.06.88 - entire service period of account and granting selection grade/special as on 1.6.88 permitted - order issued.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
School Education (G1) Department
G.O.(Ms) No. 146 Date: 19.06.2012
Thiruvalluvarandu 2043
Aani -5
Read
1. G.O.(Ms) No.210, School Education (G1) Dept, Date 14 08.2009.
2. G.O. (Ms) No.190 School Education (G1), Dept, Date 12.07.2010.
3. G.O.(Ms) No.230, School Education (G1) Dept., Date 10.08.2010
4. Letter by the Director of Elementary Education in Na.Ka.No/13907/L1/T1.2011, dated 23.05.2011 and 23.05.2012.
ORDER:-
The first read above in the Government order, the 65 middle school B.T. Headmaster Teachers having filed before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, they prior to 01.06.1988 served as Secondary Grade Teacher and Headmasters of primary school such service to accounted (till 31.05.1988) and from 01.06.1988, in the service of BT Headmasters of Middle School, on allowing special grade, at the Special Grade in the post of BT Headmasters of the Middle School the pay fixed in the pay scale at Rs.2200 -75-2800-100-4000 is permitted and order issued.
2. With reference to third read in the Government Order, in revising the 2nd Read Government Order, at this juncture, on http://www.judis.nic.in 26 considering the finance burden to be borne by the Government, till the date of issuing this government, it is restricted to those who have got specific order of the Court, a mentioned in the first read government order, the Headmasters and Secondary grade teachers, prior to 1.6.1988, their service period will be accounted (till 31.5.1988) and from 1.06.1988 onwards their Special grade/Selection grade is allowed in the post of B.T Headmasters of Middle school, the pay at the pay scale of Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200/ Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 in the post of BT Headmasters of Middle School in cadre of Selection grade/Special. Grade, permission is granted to the Director o f Elementary Education and order issued.
3. AT this juncture, the retired officers Association, to avail the above said benefits has filed cases and obtained orders. And those who have not filed in order to benefit all of them, it was requested to the Government to pass a common Government order in this aspect.
4. The Director of Elementary Education, as fourth read above in the letter, as per the Government Order (Ms) No.210, School Education (G1) Department, dated 14.8.09 and Government order (Ms) No.190, School Education (G1) Department dated 12.7.10 about 260 teachers have filed cases to grant them Selection grade/Special Grade and obtained onder in their favour within the specified time on informing, all the petitioners therein to avail the benefits mentioned in the above said Government Order the Selection Grade/Special Grade was allowed on 1.6.88 and on fixing the pay the following expenses will be incurred and it has been informed, with a view to avail the benefit by all it was requested to the Government to issued an order in this aspect.
http://www.judis.nic.in 27 S.No. Terms of Number of Amount Total retirement having the Received served as Head Teachers By a Master of Middle who filed teacher school on 1.6.88 Cases and obtained order 1 Retired 60 1,90,000 1,14,00,000 personals from 1.06.88 to 31.3.1993 2 Retired 50 1,75,000 87,50,000 persons from 1.6.88 to 31.5.1994 3 Retired persons 100 2,51,250 2,51,25,000 from 1.6.88 to 31.7.1994 4 Retired persons 50 3,07,500 1,53,75,000 from 1.6.88 to 31.9.1994 total 260 6,06,50,000
5. The proposal of Director of Elementary Education, has been carefully adduced and has decided to accept it. Accordingly the Government Order (MS) No.210 School Education (G1) Department, dated 14.8.09 and Government Order No.190 School Education (G1) Department, dated 12.07.2010 case filed to disburse the benefits and 260 Panchayat/ Municipality/Government/Aided schools, to avail the said benefits it has been extended prior to 1.6.88 ( till 31.5.1988) served as Secondary Grade Teacher, Headmasters of Primary Schools, headmasters of Middle Schools, entire service period in the said post is accounted and as on 1.6.88 the Selection/grade/Special grade is granted in the post of BT head Masters of Middle Schools, the Government given permission to Director of Elementary Education is to fix the scale of pay.
6. This order is issued with the consent of Finance Department under U.O. No. 337/DS(KM)/12 dated 19.6.2012. http://www.judis.nic.in //BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR// 28 T.Sabitha Prl Secy to Government
12. It is brought to our notice that a Hon'ble Division Bench at Madurai Bench of this Court, following a Judgement of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai - 9 Vs. G.Eswaran reported in (2017) 2 MLJ 257, dismissed a writ appeal preferred by the state in The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education (G1) Department, Chennai Vs. M.Natarajan in W.A.(MD)No.1420 of 2017 dated 20.11.2017. Paragraphs 3 to 9, relevant are extracted hereunder:
"3. Earlier, the Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order in W.P.(MD)No.10891 of 2016, (filed by the Petitioner) at paragraph Nos.3 and 4, had observed the following:-
"3. This Court, in similar circumstances, has passed the following order in W.P.(MD)No.15020 to 15029 of 2012, dated 28.10.2013 which is usefully extracted below:-
“The Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions were working as Secondary Grade Teachers in http://www.judis.nic.in various schools. Later, they were 29 all promoted as Headmasters of Elementary Schools and Graduate Headmasters of Middle School, on various dates. Ultimately, they attained superannuation on different dates. According to the Petitioners, the length of services rendered by them as Secondary Grade Teacher and Elementary School Headmaster was not taken into account for awarding Selection Grade as well as Special Grade in the post of Middle School Graduate Headmasters. In this regard, according to them, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department, dated 14.08.2009, wherein the Government had directed that the period of service rendered by the Teachers as Secondary Grade Teachers and Elementary School Headmaster, prior to becoming the Graduate Headmaster of Middle School, should also be taken into account for awarding selection and Special Grade of pay. However, the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210 was given only to http://www.judis.nic.in 65 persons. Thereafter, a number 30 of Writ Petitions were filed by similarly placed persons and a Learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed those Writ Petitions. However, on appeal, a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.815 of 2010, etc. batch, by order dated 07.07.2011, had issued a direction to the Respondents therein to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department, dated 14.08.2009, to the appellants therein. Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Petitioners are also entitled for the same relief.
2. The Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents would submit that the order of the Division Bench has been complied with in respect of those persons and as far as these Petitioners are concerned, their requests would be considered by the Respondents.
3. I have considered the above submissions.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4. Since the issues involved 31 in these Writ Petitions have already been settled by the Division Bench and since the benefits have also been extended by the Government to similarly placed persons, I am inclined to issue a direction granting the same to the Petitioners also.
5. In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed with a direction to the Respondents to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department, dated 14.08.2009, to the Petitioners also.
It is further directed that the consequential order shall be issued by the Government within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs.
4. Following the order of this Court dated 28.10.2013, made in W.P(MD)Nos.15020 to 15029 of 2012, this Writ Petition is also allowed with a direction to the Respondents to extend the http://www.judis.nic.in benefits of G.O.Ms.No.190, School 32 Education (G1) Department, dated 14.08.2009, to the Petitioner also.
Such benefit shall be extended to the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
and ultimately, disposed of the Writ Petition by issuing necessary directions.
4. At the time of hearing of the present Writ Appeal, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Writ Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that in W.A.(MD)Nos.361 to 363 and 374 to 382 of 2015, a Division Bench of this Court, on 11.08.2017, following the Full Bench decision of this Court, between THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP.
BY ITS SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-9 AND OTHERS v.
G.ESWARAN AND OTHERS reported in 2017 (2) MLJ 257, had dismissed the Writ Appeals and the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case on hand.
5. In the instant case, the Respondent/Writ Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Grade Teacher in Emakkalapuram Union Elementary School on 10.10.1980, he was working as Secondary Grade Teacher between 10.10.1990 and 10.10.2000. Subsequently, he http://www.judis.nic.in was appointed as Tamil Pandit on 01.07.1997 33 at Panchayat Union Middle School, Sanarpatti, Dindigul District. He was also promoted to the post of Middle School Headmaster, Koova.Kurumbapatti on 01.07.2001. Later, he was reverted to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on 05.08.2003 as the School was upgraded as High School and Middle School Headmaster post was disbanded and subsequently, he was again promoted to the post of Middle School Headmaster on 16.07.2004 and on attaining the age of superannuation, he was retired from service on 31.10.2005 as Headmaster, Middle School, Veerachinnampatti Union, Dindigul District.
6. The categorical stand of the appellants/Respondents is that the Respondent passed a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department, dated 14.08.2009 to the effect that the length of service in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and Elementary School Headmaster prior to 01.06.1988 shall be reckoned to provide Special Grade in the post of Middle School Graduate Headmaster in respect of 65 Middle School Graduate Headmasters, who obtained orders from the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and their scale of pay was fixed in the post of Middle School Graduate Headmaster as Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 in terms of http://www.judis.nic.in recommendation of the Fifth Pay 34 Commission.
7. Apart from that, the similarly placed Middle School Graduate Headmaster, after passing of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.210, dated 14.08.2009 filed number of Writ Petitions before this Court and obtained orders for extension of the benefits of the aforesaid Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.210, dated 14.08.2009. The primordial plea of the Respondent/Petitioner is that G.O.Ms.No.190, School Education (G1) Department, dated 12.07.2010 passed by the First Appellant/First Respondent restricting the operation of G.O.Ms.No.210, dated 14.08.2009 to those persons, who had secured orders of the Court on or before 12.07.2010, is untenable in Law. Further, the Respondent/Petitioner pleads that he is also a similarly placed Teacher like that of other teachers and therefore, entitled to the benefits of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.210, dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 12.07.2010 and therefore, his length of service before 01.06.1988 in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher ought to be reckoned for the purpose of grant of Special Grade in the post of Middle School Graduate Headmaster and that he is entitled to be granted salary in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 and that the benefits of the G.O.Ms.No.210, dated http://www.judis.nic.in 14.08.2009 also should be extended to and in 35 his favour.
8. It is not in dispute that subsequently in W.A.Nos.815 of 2010 etc., the judgment was passed on 07.07.2011 on the ground that the cause of action is a continuous one etc., and ultimately it was held that the Government should have extended the benefits of G.O.Ms.Nos.210 and 234 to all the similarly situated employees.
9. Following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court between THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-9 AND OTHERS v. G.ESWARAN AND OTHERS (Rev. Application No.227 of 2015 etc., W.A.Nos.1744 of 2015, etc., W.P.Nos.29774 of 2016, etc., and Contempt Petition Nos.1545 of 2016, etc., batch, dated 09.12.2016), reported in 2017 (2) MLJ 257, also keeping in mind the common Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)Nos.361 to 363 and 374 to 382 of 2015, dated 11.08.2017, this Court, considering the issue(s) centering around the present Writ Appeal, which is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court, dismisses the present Writ Appeal to prevent an aberration of Justice and in furtherance of substantial cause of Justice. However, there http://www.judis.nic.in shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, 36 connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed."
13. Against the said judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No.1420 of 2017, dated 20.11.2017, State has preferred a Review Application (MD) No.37 of 2018, before the Madurai Bench of this Court.
14. Adverting to the grounds of review and submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader (Education), a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Madurai Bench) passed a very detailed order on 21.03.2018, in the said Review Application (MD) No.37 of 2018. Paragraphs 6 to 33 of the said order are extracted hereunder:
"6. Assailing the correctness, legality and validity of the impugned Judgment dated 20.11.2017 in W.A.(MD).No.1420 of 2017 passed by this Court, the Petitioners have filed the present Review Application based on the reason that the Hon'ble Division Bench should have seen that the Respondent/Writ Petitioner is not entitled to get the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.234, dated 10.09.2009.
7. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Special Government Pleader for the http://www.judis.nic.in Petitioners/Appellants submits that only persons 37 promoted as Primary School Headmasters prior to 01.06.1988 and persons who worked under Panchayat Union Schools are entitled to the benefits and no one else, i.e. to count their service as Secondary Grade Teachers for awarding Selection Grade and Special Grade in Headmaster Post.
8. Added further, it is the submission of the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Petitioners/Appellants that the original intention of the Government for bringing the scheme in question was for the benefit of the Teachers serving in Panchayat Union School and further, Elementary Education, one Panchayat is one Unit and therefore, prior to 01.06.1988, since salary was same, although the concerned persons are seniors in service, persons opted to go to their native Panchayat as Secondary Grade Teacher, giving up their right to be Primary School Headmasters. After 01.06.1988, payment was refixed and they got affected. Apart from that, 63 persons, who originally obtained the orders of the Court and which paved way for all the controversies belong to the Panchayat Union School and now the benefits were restricted to eligible Teachers in Panchayat Union Schools and not to other Schools.
http://www.judis.nic.in
9. The Learned Special Government 38 Pleader for the Petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that the batch of cases in W.P.(MD).No.1026 of 2010 and W.P.(MD).Nos.12255 of 2009 etc. were dismissed on 21.01.2010 and 17.09.2010 respectively on the ground of delay and latches.
However, a batch of Appeals in W.A.(MD)No.815 of 2010 etc. were allowed on 07.07.2011 to extent the benefits as they are similarly placed persons. In the meanwhile, W.A.Nos.512 to 516 of 2011 came to be dismissed by another Division Bench. The Division Bench, which disposed of the W.A.Nos.815 of 2010 etc. batch, according to the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Petitioners, was not inclined to take a different view and by Judgment dated 29.09.2011 in W.P.No.21804 of 2011, this Court held that persons who came after 07.07.2011 are not entitled to any arrears in extending such benefits to them.
10. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Petitioners proceeds to point out that the VI Pay Commission was given effect from 01.01.1996 as per G.O.Ms.No.162 and that Pay for Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster was refixed and the basic pay for Secondary Grade Teacher was fixed as Rs.4,500/- and Primary School http://www.judis.nic.in Headmaster Rs.5,300/-.39
11.The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Petitioners forcibly contends that on conferring such Selection Grade/Special Grade, the employees are entitled to higher scale that he would get in the promoted post, but will remain to work in the same post. Besides that, it is a basic rule that if a person works for more than 10 years in the same post, he is entitled to Selection Grade and further 10 years in the said post, he is entitled to Special Grade.
12. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Petitioner contends that prior to 01.06.1988 the date on which the V Pay Commission was given effect to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and the post of Primary School Headmasters were having the same scale of pay and basic for both of them was Rs.610/- and in short, the posts are inter se transferable. Furthermore, normally senior most Secondary Grade Teacher will be the Headmaster and that the Headmaster would be getting Special pay of Rs.15/- per month.
13. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants puts forward a plea that there is an error on the face of record http://www.judis.nic.in when this Court had disposed of 40 W.A.(MD)No.1420 of 2010 while applying the Judgment reported in (2017) 2 MLJ 257 (DB) [Government of Tamil Nadu V. G.Eswaran and others].
14. The core contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners/Appellants is that this Court at the time of disposal of W.A.No.1420 of 2017 should have seen that the Full Bench Judgment, which was referred in W.A.(MD)No.1420 of 2017 is not in favour of Employees and hence, they are not entitled to arrears of the amount and as such, the Court should have disposed of the Writ Appeal in terms of the directions issued thereunder and ought not to have dismissed the Writ Appeal.
15. It is the stand of the Appellants that the Selection Grade Secondary Grade Teachers would draw a time scale of pay 5300-150-8300 (VI Pay Commission) which is admissible to a Primary School Headmaster, in the ordinary scale and that the Primary School Headmaster post will be the first level promotion post for a Secondary Grade Teacher and the following Tabular Column is extracted hereunder:
V Pay Commission Secondary Ordinary Selection Special Grade Grade Grade Grade http://www.judis.nic.in 01-06-1998 1200 1400 1640 41 Secondary Ordinary Selection Special Grade Grade Grade Grade 01-01-1996 4500 5300 5900 VI Pay Commission Secondary Ordinary Selection Special Grade Grade Grade Grade 01-06-1998 1400 1640 2000 01-01-1996 5300 6500 8000 The above mentioned column, according to the Petitioners/Appellants will point out that this type of equalisation if Selection Grade pay and Ordinary Grade first level promotion pay cease to exist after 01.01.2006 i.e. when the revised scale of pay Rules – 2009 was introduced in 2009 by issuing G.O.Ms.No.234, dated 01.06.2009 which came into effect from 01.01.2006.
16. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Petitioners vehemently puts forward an argument that if an individual after 10 years and after securing the Selection Grade work for a particular period in the same post for five more years, after getting promoted, for awarding Selection Grade/Special Grade, the service rendered by him in the feeder category with Selection Grade/Special Grade will be taken into account for granting Selection Grade/Special Grade in the promoted post as http://www.judis.nic.in per G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 11.03.1987;42
G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 07.08.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 05.03.2001.
17. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Petitioners draws the attention of this Court that persons were promoted as Primary School Headmasters after 01.06.1988 approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2997 of 1991 and O.A.No.3010 of 1991 dated 24.09.1993 and the Tribunal came down heavily on the Department for passing such Government Order and paras 3 and 4 of the said Government Order was quashed. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.300 dated 07.04.1994 was passed and that G.O.Ms.No.1381 dated 05.01.1990 was recalled. Added further, the persons to whom benefits were given in the meanwhile approached the Court either challenging the recovery or to prevent the recovery. This Court also had not ordered for recovery of the benefits already given to the concerned persons. Based on such directions, G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 16.12.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.160 dated 23.08.2005 came to be passed. However, 63 persons approached the Tribunal and obtained orders as if they are similarly placed persons to whom benefits of G.O.Ms.No.1381 dated 05.10.1990 was given and secured orders to extend the benefits to http://www.judis.nic.in them (vide order dated 12.07.2002 in 43 O.A.No.68 of 1997 and O.A.No.177 of 1997). While summing up, it is the plea of the Appellants that the Judgment passed by this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1420 of 2017 on 20.11.2017 is an illegal, arbitrary and liable to be reviewed.
18. It is to be borne in mind that for filing of a 'Review' in respect of an decision or order passed by the Court, there must be reasons like creeping in of an error apparent on the face of record. Further, a Review Petition cannot be filed as an 'Appeal in Disguise'. The position of Law is that if an Order/Judgment passed by a Competent Court is not palatable to the concerned Litigant/Party, then, in Law, it is open to him to approach the Competent Higher Forum for redressal of his grievances.
Moreover, just because another view is possible in that event also, a 'Review Petition' will not lie in the eye of Law, as opined by this Court.
19. It is to be noted that 'Review' literally and even judicially means re-examination or re- consideration. It cannot be gainsaid that 'Review' and 'Appeal' cannot go altogether. In reality, 'Review' lies only on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. Under the guise of 'Review', the High Court would not rehear the http://www.judis.nic.in parties on point of Law afresh as per decision 44 Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank Limited V. Smt.Basanti Swain and others, 96 (2003) CLT 159 Orissa (DB).
20. At this juncture, this Court aptly points out the decision Rajeswari and another V. Sri Bhuvaneswari Cycle Mart rep. By its Managing Partner D.Ramasamy reported in 2007 6 MLJ 47 at page 48 wherein it is held that 'An erroneous decision can be corrected only by the Higher Forum and it cannot be corrected by exercising the review jurisdiction'.
21.It is the settled proposition of Law that a 'Review of the Judgment' cannot be granted in the garb of clarification as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri (Dr.) and others V. Union of India and others, (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 618.
22. The 'Power of Review' is not to be confused with an Appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct an erroneous decision by process of 'Reheard and Corrected'. In short, a Review Petition has a limited role to play and by any means, it cannot be permitted to act as an Appeal in disguise. http://www.judis.nic.in Even though if two views are possible on the 45 point involved, then, that is not a ground for 'Review' as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited and another V. State of Bihar and others, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 509.
23. One cannot brush aside a prime fact that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions as per decision Abdul Rasheed V. Union of India and others, (2007) 3 Calcutta Head Notes 888, 891 (Cal) (DB). A Review which seeks Rehearing of the matter is not maintainable as per decision J. & K. Bank V. Mohd. Sultan Dar, AIR 2006 JAMMU & KASHMIR 35.
24. In this connection, it is not out of place for this Court to make a pertinent mention that even an erroneous order or incorrect decision cannot be corrected in 'Review'. Also that, 'Rehearing' of the matter on merits and reappreciation of the arguments/pleas raised by the parties in the original order is not permissible in Review, as per decision MCD V. Anil Prakash, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1653 (Del.) (DB). If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the findings rendered by a Competent Court, then, http://www.judis.nic.in the remedy in Law is not filing of a Review 46 Petition, as opined by this Court.
25. No wonder, where the order in question is Appealable, the aggrieved party has an adequate and efficacious remedy and the Court should exercise the power of 'Review' its order with greatest circumspection as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haridas Das V. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 78. 'Reappraisal of Evidence' is impermissible in Review.
26. The term 'Mistake or Error apparent' by its very connotation points out an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require a detailed manner of scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others V. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008) 8 SCC 612, 633.
27. It is to be noted that 'Erroneous Decision' can be corrected by an Appellate/Higher Authority. However, 'An error apparent on the face of record' can be corrected by a Court of Law under 'Review Jurisdiction'. http://www.judis.nic.in
28. It cannot be gainsaid that 'An error 47 apparent on the face of record' is not to be defined either in an elaborate manner or in a precise fashion, in the considered opinion of this Court. The resultant position is that it is for the concerned Competent Court to decide this question judicially resting on the facts and circumstances of a given case.
29. In fact, the ingredients of Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code and Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. specify the ingredients to be complied with prior to the exercise of the power of 'Review', of course, subject to the extent and limitations.
30. As far as the present case is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that while passing the Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1420 of 2017, this Court had taken note of the Judgment delivered in W.A.No.815 of 2010 etc. 07.07.2011 and also at para 9 of its Judgment, referred to the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in (2017) 2 MLJ 257 [Government of Tamil Nadu V.G.Eswaran and others]. Also, this Court borne in mind the common Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)Nos.361 to 363 and 374 to 382 of 2015 dated 11.08.2017 and dismissed the Writ Appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
31. In view of the foregoings, this Court is 48 of the considered view that the Petitioners are not able to satisfy the subjective judicial conscience of this Court as to the creeping in of a purported apparent error in the Judgment delivered by this Court in W.A.(MD).No.1420 of 2017. Undoubtedly, the scope of 'Review' in Law either under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code or under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is very limited/restricted as the case may be.
32. Considering the fact that even though an endeavour has been made on behalf of the Appellants that in any event the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.1420 of 2017, following the Full Bench Judgment reported in (2017) 2 MLJ 257 (FB) (cited supra), should have disposed of the Writ Appeal in terms of the directions issued thereunder and not to have dismissed the Appeal, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the Review Petition filed by the Appellants is per se not maintainable in the eye of Law. Furthermore, at the risk of repetition, it is pertinently pointed out that when this Court in the Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1420 of 2017 dated 20.11.2017, at para 8, had referred to the Judgment in W.A.No.815 of 2010 etc. batch dated 07.07.2011 and later mentioned in the said Judgment, a decision of the Full Bench as aforestated, this Court is not inclined to take a http://www.judis.nic.in different view than the one already arrived at in 49 this regard. Viewed in that perspective, the 'Review Petition' in any event, in Law, is not maintainable 'Ex facie'.
33. In fine, the Review Petition is dismissed. No costs. It is open to the Review Petitioners/Appellants to approach the Competent Higher Forum for redressal of their grievances in accordance with Law, if they so desire/advised. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed."
15. Mr.C.Munusamy, learned Special Government Pleader, made submissions, reiterating the grounds. We have gone through the materials on record and the grounds in the instant appeal. Same points have been raised. The above decisions are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, following the above decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench (cited supra), as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench (cited supra) instant writ appeal is dismissed. The appellants are directed to grant the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department, dated 14.08.2009 to respondent's father and fix his pay in Selection Grade / Special Grade, in the post of Middle School Headmaster, by counting the service rendered as Secondary Grade Teacher/Primary School Headmaster/Elementary School Headmaster, from the date of his http://www.judis.nic.in promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster, if he was not 50 given the same already, with all monetary benefits and the pensionary benefits with arrears till the date of his death. Considering the long period of litigation, litigation expenses etc., we deem it fit to direct the appellants to fix the pay in the Selection Grade / Special Grade as ordered above within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement and consequently, the appellants are further directed to revise the pension / family pension, and disburse both the arrears of salary and differential pension, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
[S.M.K., J.] [S.P., J.]
02.01.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ars/dm
Note: Issue order copy on or before 07.01.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in 51 S. MANIKUMAR, J.
AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
ars/dm W.A.No.2793 of 2018 and CMP No.23106 of 2018 02.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in