Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ORDER of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 10.01.2003 made in O.A.No.2662 of 2001, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same.

2. According to the petitioner, he joined the service in AdiDravidar Welfare Department as Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1965 and continued as such till 1992. Since he was stagnating in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher for 10 years and 20 years, he was awarded Selection Grade and Special Grade respectively on completion of the said period of service. In the month of July,1992 he was promoted as Headmaster of Elementary School run by the Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department. Thereafter, he was entitled to draw the scale of pay due to the Elementary School Headmaster. After 01.06.1988, the post of Elementary School Headmaster had been made as a promotional post. Prior to that date, the post of Elementary School Headmaster is equivalent to Secondary Grade Teacher. Though he worked as Elementary School Headmaster prior to 1988, his status was only as a Secondary Grade Teacher. When he was actually promoted as Headmaster of the Elementary School in 1992, he was entitled to the scale of pay for the Headmaster of Elementary School. He retired in the year 2002. It is the claim of the Department that in 1992, when he had been promoted as Elementary School Headmaster, he was entitled to draw the ordinary scale of pay due to Elementary School Headmaster, but, he was drawing the scale of pay of Special Grade Headmaster from 1993. This was noticed by the Accountant General when his pension papers were scrutinized. The Tribunal, after finding that the petitioner was not entitled to special pay, upheld the objection raised by the Accountant General and dismissed his application; hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. S. Silambannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E. Sampathkumar, learned Government Advocate for respondents 2 to 4.

4. It is not in dispute that prior to 01.06.1988, the scale of pay of Secondary Grade Teacher and that of Headmaster of Primary Schools were identical. In other words, the Secondary Grade Teachers appointed as Headmasters of Primary Schools were allowed to draw the scale of pay of ordinary grade, Selection Grade and Special Grade applicable to the Secondary Grade Teachers and in addition to that, they were allowed to draw special pay. Based on the representation of the various Associations of Teaching staff, by G.O.Ms.No.1381 Education Department dated 05.10.1990, the Government considered it more appropriate that in respect of Headmasters of Primary Schools, who were in position on 01.06.1988, the services rendered in the Secondary Grade Teachers and Headmasters of Primary Schools should be taken into account for the purpose of awarding Selection Grade and Special Grade and accordingly, directed that the Headmasters of Primary Schools under the Government, Local Bodies and all kinds of Management, who were in position on 01.06.1988 should be awarded Selection Grade and Special Grade in the revised scales on or after 01.06.1988, computing the period of service rendered as Secondary Grade Teacher as well as Primary School Headmaster prior to 01.06.1988. The said Government Order further provides that as the post of Headmaster carries higher scale of pay above that of the Secondary Grade Teacher, the promotion after 01.06.1988 shall be allowed fixation of pay in the post of Headmaster as provided under FR.22(b). It is true that the petitioner herein was promoted as Headmaster of Elementary School in the year 1992 and then onwards he is entitled to higher scale of pay than that of the Secondary Grade Teacher. However, it is not in dispute that prior to 01.06.1 988, the scale of pay of Secondary Grade Teachers and Headmasters of Primary Schools were identical. In such circumstances, it is the claim of the petitioner that though he was appointed as Headmaster in July, 1992, in view of the fact that scale of pay of Secondary Grade Teachers and Headmasters were identical, the Department is not justified in initiating recovery proceedings based on the wrong assumption of the Accountant General. We have gone through all the materials.