R.Jayakanthan v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 28-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.2967 of 2007 (O.A.No.400 of 2001)1.R.Jayakanthan2.M.Vasudevan3.V.Parimala4.S.Venkatesan.. Petitioners.Versus1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government,School Education Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9.2.Director of School Education,Chennai.3.Chief Educational Officer,Tiruvannamalai... Respondents. Prayer: Original Application No.400 of 2001 filed before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the fileof this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.2967 of 2007,seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for therecords pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent inG.O.Ms.No.100, School Education Department, dated 18.4.2000, and setaside the same in so far as it refuses to count the entire length ofservices for the purpose of Selection Grade and Special Grade as faras the petitioners are concerned; and direct the respondents toregularise the services of the petitioners from the date ofappointment in the cadre of Grade II Tamil Pandit and consequentlyaward Selection Grade and Special Grade by counting the entire lengthof service rendered by them in Grade II Tamil Pandit. For Petitioner : Mr.S.ManiFor Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed to set aside the order ofthe first respondent, in G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education (M1)Department, dated 18.4.2000, in so far as it does not permit thecounting of the entire length of the service of the petitioners, forthe purpose of Selection Grade and Special Grade and to direct therespondents to regularise the service of the petitioners from thedate of their appointment in the cadre of Grade-II, Tamil Pandit. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, thelearned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submittedthat the first petitioner, R.Jeyakanthan, was initially appointed,temporarily, as a Grade II Tamil Pandit, with effect from 9.9.1967.He had served as a Grade-II Tamil Pandit, till 9.10.1969. Thereafter,he was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher, on regular basis, witheffect from 10.10.1969. 4. The second petitioner, N.Vasudevan, was initially appointed,temporarily, as a Grade II Tamil Pandit, with effect from 6.9.1967.He had served as a Grade-II Tamil Pandit, till 1.9.1969. Thereafter,he was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher, on regular basis, witheffect from 2.9.1969. The third petitioner, V.Parimala, was initiallyappointed, temporarily, as a Grade II Tamil Pandit, with effect from8.9.1967. She had served as a Grade-II Tamil Pandit, till 22.7.1969.Thereafter, she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher, on aregular basis, with effect from 23.7.1969. The fourth petitioner,S.Venkatesan, was initially appointed, temporarily, as a Grade IITamil Pandit, with effect from 8.9.1967. He had served as a Grade-IITamil Pandit, till 1.9.1969. Thereafter, he was appointed as aSecondary Grade Teacher, on a regular basis, with effect from2.9.1969.5. It has been further stated that the Government of Tamil Naduhad issued G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education (M1) Department, dated18.4.2000. It had been specifically stated that the request fortaking into account the service rendered as a Grade II Tamil Panditfor awarding Selection Grade/Special Grade, in the post of SecondaryGrade Teacher, cannot be complied with since the petitioners had beenappointed as Grade-II Tamil Pandits, only on a temporary basis. Theservice of the petitioners, as Grade-II Tamil Pandits, was notcontinuous from the date of their initial appointment, as they had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been ousted from service during the summer vacations, in the month ofMay of each year. Further, the petitioners do not possess thequalifications required for appointment as Grade-II Tamil Pandits.However, the Government of Tamil Nadu had permitted the counting ofthe service of Grade II Tamil Pandits for the calculation ofpensionary benefits. The petitioners were possessing only SecondaryGrade qualifications and they do not possess the qualificationsrequired for the post of Grade II Tamil Pandit. Hence, the ordersissued in G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education (M1) Department, dated18.4.2000, is fully applicable to the petitioners and therefore, theywere not eligible for the revised Selection Grade/Special Grade, bytaking into account the service of Grade-II Tamil Pandit.6. It has been further stated that the order passed by the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 10.6.1994, in O.A.No.464 of 1993,in respect of N.Sethia Koundan, is not applicable to the petitioners,as he had been initially appointed, as Grade II Tamil Pandit, witheffect from 12.8.1966, subject to the condition that the period ofservice would be counted in the service of Secondary Grade Teacher.Whereas, the petitioners had been appointed, temporarily, as Grade-IITamil Pandits. No condition had been incorporated in theirappointment orders that their services as Grade-II Tamil Panditswould be included in the service of Secondary Grade Teacher.Therefore, the validity of the order, in G.O.Ms.No.100, SchoolEducation (M1) Department, dated 18.4.2000, cannot be questioned inthe present writ petition. Only the regular service rendered by aperson would be taken into account for the awarding of SelectionGrade/Special Grade, as per the rules. Since temporary service wouldnot be taken into account, the petitioners are not entitled to thereliefs, as sought for by them, in the present writ petition. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents,this Court is of the view that the petitioners have not shownsufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for bythem, in the present writ petition. They have not been in a positionto show that the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.100, SchoolEducation (M1) Department, dated 18.4.2000, had been satisfied by thepetitioners, since the petitioners had been appointed only,temporarily, as Grade-II Tamil Pandits, and as such, the servicerendered by the petitioners cannot be counted for awarding SelectionGrade/Special Grade, in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. However,on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearingon behalf of the respondents, it is made clear that the servicerendered by the petitioners, as Grade-II Tamil Pandits, shall becounted for the calculation of their pensionary benefits, as they hadalready retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation.If the retirement benefits due to the petitioners have not beensettled, till date, the respondents shall disburse the amounts due to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioners, within a period of twelve weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition isdisposed of, as noted above. No costs.csh Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Secretary to Government,School Education Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9.2.The Director of School Education,Chennai.3.The Chief Educational Officer,Tiruvannamalai.+ 1 cc to The Government Pleader CCSR.33302.Writ Petition No.2967 of 2007JP(CO)EU 14.8.2009.