Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)Vallalar High School vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 April, 2014
2. W.P.Nos.4362 to 4366 of 2015 have been filed for issuance
of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to upgrade the post of
Secondary Grade Teacher held by the petitioner as BT Assistant with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/14
W.P.Nos.2751, 2752, 4362 to 4366, 7281, 7283 & 7284 of 2015
effect from 01.06.2002 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.79 School Education
Department dated 14.06.2002, with all consequential benefits in the light
of the judgment passed in Vallalar High School Vs. The Government of
Tamil Nadu in W.P.No.26483 of 2005 dated 16.04.2014 and W.P.(MD)
No. 1664 of 2005 dated 02.11.2006 in the case of R.Padma Sheela Rani
Vs.State of Tamil Nadu and others.
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 1983
In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India reported in (1984) 2 SCC 167, in the case of P.K.Ramachandra Vs.
Union of India, which reads as follows :
Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982
“ "17. ...The hard fact is that the petitioners
were holding the posts of Professor when the revised
scale became effective. In the letter dated January 20,
1971 sanctioning revised scale for the post of Professor,
there is not even a whisper that the existing incumbent
will be denied the benefit. In fact, it is well known that the
University Grants Commission regularly recommends
revised scales for every plan period for teaching posts
and the revision takes note of inadequate scales
sanctioned till the date of revision. The only justification
offered by the respondents for denying the petitioners the
benefit of the revised scale is to be found in the counter-
affidavit of Dr. M.S. Swaminathan. It is contended that
the newly created post in the cadre of Professor is not the
same as the then existing post and that there was
marginal revision in the qualifications for not the posts of
Professor in the revised scale and that petitioners were
not discriminated because they were given an opportunity
to contest for the posts in the revised scale. The
justification is too flimsy to merit any serious
consideration more so in view of the fact that it is difficult
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/14
W.P.Nos.2751, 2752, 4362 to 4366, 7281, 7283 & 7284 of 2015
to envisage a situation in such institutes, undertaking
advance research in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry
where persons holding Doctorate qualification and
enjoying the status of the post of Professor would be
governed by two different scales even though the duties,
responsibilities and functions in various sister disciplines
are identical. In such a situation Art. 39(d), trust assist us
in reaching a fair and just conclusion. Elaborating the
underlying intendment of Art. 39(d), Chinnappa Reddy, J.
in Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.(1) observed
that construing Arts. 14 and 16 in the light of the
Preamble and Art. 39(d), the Court was of the view that
the principle equal pay for equal work' is deducible from
those Articles and may be properly applied to the cases of
unequal scales of pay based on no classification or
irrational classification though those drawing the
different scales of pay do identical work under the same
employer. The case in hand is a glaring example of
discriminatory treatment accorded to old experienced
and highly qualified hands with an evil eye and unequal
hand and the quarantee of equality in all its pervasive
character must enable this Court to remove
discrimination and to restore fair play in action. No
attempt was made to sustain the scales of pay for the post
of Professor on the doctrine of classification because the
classification of existing incumbents as be distinct and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/14
W.P.Nos.2751, 2752, 4362 to 4366, 7281, 7283 & 7284 of 2015
separate from newly recruited hand with flimsy change in
essential qualification would be wholly irrational and
arbitrary. The case of the petitioners for being put in the
revised scale of Rs. 1100-1600 from the date on which
newly created posts of Professors in sister disciplines in
IVRI and other institutes were created and filled in
revised scale is unanswerable and must be conceded."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.Mary Jacklin Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 February, 2019
11. This Court, in W.P.No.26483 of 2005 by an order dated
16.04.2014, already held that those who were appointed prior to
G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002, the School should get approval from
the Government prior to the appointment of other teachers as per G.O.
Therefore, the rejection of the request made by the petitioners are totally
arbitrary and erroneous. This Court, in W.P.(MD) No.14870 of 2010 in
the case of M.Mary Jacklin Pushpa Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, already
held that it is crystal clear that the law on this subject has been well
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though equal pay for equal
work is not expressly stated in any of the provision of the Fundamental
Rights, it falls within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
in view of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India and the same is
enforceable by the Courts. Those teachers who were appointed after
14.06.2002 and the petitioners are equal in all respects. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/14
W.P.Nos.2751, 2752, 4362 to 4366, 7281, 7283 & 7284 of 2015
doctrine of equal pay for equal work should be applied in the case on
hand. When the teachers, who were appointed on or after 14.06.2002
are equal in all respects, the petitioners are also entitled for the same
scale of pay for the post of BT Assistant with effect from 01.06.2006.
Whereas, in the case on hand, all the petitioners were appointed as
Secondary Grade Teacher even prior to G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002.
Therefore, all the teachers are entitled to be regularised when the date of
G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002 i.e., from 01.06.2002.
1