A.Rajalakshmi Nandini v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The appeal is allowed partly without any order asto costs
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 14
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. A similar issue came before this Court in the case ofK.R.Chitra v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretaryand others in W.P.No.3665 of 1998 wherein by an order dated08.02.2005, a learned Judge of this Court, by relying upon ajudgment of the Supreme…
- Para 66. In view of the judicial dictum as laid down above and thesame having been followed by this Court consistently, the abovewrit petitions are allowed and the impugned orders directing therecovery and also the consequential orders of recovery are herebyset-aside. No costs. Consequently the connected…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 12.08.2008CoramTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIWrit Petition No.13700 to 13702 of 2004 andW.P.M.P.Nos.909 to 911 of 2008 andW.V.M.P.No771 of 2005A.Rajalakshmi Nandini ... Petitioner in W.P.No.13700 of2004R.Susili Jeyarani... Petitioner in W.P.No.13701 of2004A.Rajasekar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.13702of 2004-Vs.-1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai– 600 009 .. 1st respondent in all the W.Ps2. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006 .. 2nd respondent in all the W.Ps.3. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli Dist .. 3rd respondent in all the W.Ps.4. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kizhapavur at Pavur Chathiram, Tirunelveli Dist. .. 4th respondent in all the W.Ps.5. The Secretary, A.V.Primary School, Kizhapavur and Post, Tirunelveli District .. 5th respondent in W.P.No.13700 of 20046. The Secretary, Sri Gandhi Vidya Salai, Kadabogathi and post, Tirunelveli District – 627 814 .. 5th respondent in W.P.No.13701 of 20046. The Secretary, Hindu Primary School, Arunaperi and Post, Tirunelveli Dist., .. 5th respondent in W.P.No.13702 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PRAYER.: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus tocall for the records relating to the order of the second respondentissued in Na.Ka.No.39470/EG4/2003, dated 27.11.2003 and theconsequential order of the fourth respondent passed in hisproceedings No.1317/B2/2004 dated 31.03.2004 and quash the same inso far as the direction to respondents 3 and 4 to recover the Primary School Headmistress pay paid to the petitioners prior tothe completion of five years of teaching experience alone isconcerned taking note of the completion of five years of teachingexperience only from 01.07.1998, 03.04.2000 and 01.11.1998, andconsequently direct the respondents to continuously pay thepetitioners’ pay as Primary School Headmistress pay from01.07.1993, 01.07.1993 and 19.11.1993, respectively. For Petitioner in all the W.Ps. : Mr. K.VijayakumarFor Respondents in all the W.Ps. : Mr. K.H.Ravikumar, Govt. Advocate (Edn.) for R-1 to R-4 R5- NA in all WPs- - -C O M M O N
O R D E RBy consent of the learned counsel on either side the writpetitions are taken up for final disposal. Heard both.
In W.P.No.13700 of 2004 the writ petitioner was appointedas a Headmistress of a middle school, namely, A.V.Primary School, Kizhapavur and Post, Tirunelveli District, from 01.07.1993,likewise the writ petitioner in W.P.No.13701 of 2004 was appointedas a Headmistress of a middle school, namely, Sri Gandhi VidyaSalai, Kadabogathi and post, Tirunelveli District from 03.04.1995and similarly the writ petitioner in W.P.No.13702 of 2004 wasappointed as a Headmaster of middle school, namely, Hindu PrimarySchool, Arunaperi and Post, Tirunelveli Dist., from 01.11.1993. Itis not in dispute that at the time when the petitioners wereappointed as Headmistresses / Headmaster, they were educationallyqualified having Degree in Education but they were lacking fiveyears of teaching experience as secondary grade teachers. It isalso not in dispute that after their appointment, their appointmentwas regularised and the appointment was in respect of the approvedposts and after the appointment they were granted Selection Gradeafter completion of ten years of service. It was thereafter afterservice of these candidates for more than ten years the secondrespondent namely the Director of Elementary Education has passedthe impugned order on 27.11.2003 directing to recover the excesspayment of salary on the basis that at the time of theirappointment they were not having the required five years ofteaching experience as Secondary Grade Teachers. Subsequent to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said order the consequential order of recovery has been passed bythe concerned Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officerof Tirunelveli District for recovery of the amount from the year oftheir appointment. On the admitted facts of appointment of thesepersons as Headmistress / Headmaster of the middle school and theappointment having been approved and subsequent benefits ofselection grade have been given, the question that has to beconsidered is whether at this point of time the impugned order ofrecovery can be made.
The fact that the appointment of these petitioners as Headmistress / Headmaster in the middle school in an approved postand confirmity of various benefits by selection are admitted in thecounter affidavit filed by the respondents.
A similar issue came before this Court in the case ofK.R.Chitra v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretaryand others in W.P.No.3665 of 1998 wherein by an order dated08.02.2005, a learned Judge of this Court, by relying upon ajudgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma v.Union of India reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 521 andsubsequently followed by a Division Bench decision of this Court inthe case of V.Vedham vs. The Director of School Education, Madrasreported in 1992 AIEC 617 has held that inasmuch as the authoritiesat the time of their appointment were aware that the petitionerswere not having the required qualification and inspite of the samethe appointments were made for which there is no fault on the partof the petitioners, especially in the circumstances that thepetitioners have been allowed to work as Headmistress / Headmasterin these long years by conferring various service benefits to themit is not proper for passing such recovery orders thereby settingaside those orders.
The said judgment has been subsequentlyfollowed in a series of cases in similar circumstances like in thecase of C.Sundari v. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai– 6 and others in W.P. (MD) No.9474 of 2005 by an order dated28.09.2007, wherein a learned Judge of this Court, on a similarcircumstances by relying upon the earlier judgment in W.P.No.2088of 2005 dated 31.01.2007 quoting the following paragraphs namely:-“5. It is an admitted fact that the date on whichthe petitioner was appointed, he did not possesthe five years experience but while forwardingthe proposal for approval of all the connecteddocuments should have been sent along with theapplication. Under these circumstances, therespondents should be well award of the factsthat the petitioner did not possesses five yearsof experience inspite of this, by an order dated26.03.1996 his appointment was approved. Afterapproving his appointment as a middle schoolheadmaster without imposing any condition withregard to the fixation of salary, after the lapse https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of nearly nine years, the department cannot passthe impugned order and refix the pay of thepetitioner to his prejudice and order forrecovery.
Having approved the appointment of the petitioner as early as 1996 the respondents areestopped from passing the impugned order.6. That apart, it is not case of the respondentsthat basing upon the misrepresentation made bythe petitioner his appointment was approved. Yetanother factor is the Government itself hasrelaxed the qualification of five yearsexperience by G.O.Ms.No.97 School EducationDepartment dated 05.07.2001”.has allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned orders ofrecovery. This Court has also relied upon G.O.Ms.No.97 dated05.07.2001 by which the Government itself has relaxed the fiveyears experience as Secondary Grade Teachers for appointment to thepost of middle school Headmaster and ultimately the said writpetition came to be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders ofrecovery and that was also subsequently followed by another learnedJudge of this Court in a series of writ petitions in W.P.No.11663to 11670 of 2004 by an order dated 03.10.2007.
As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for thepetitioner in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 521 (referred to supra)as it was referred to by this Court on an earlier occasion asstated above, while dealing with a similar case where higher payscale was erroneously paid to the petitioners therein from 1973when the same was sought to be revised in 1984 the Supreme Courthas held that the petitioners having received the higher scale ofpay due to no fault of theirs, it is only just and proper not torecover any excess amount already paid to them. The Supreme Courthas also dealt with the concept of equal pay for equal work andheld that even in the absence of the required teachingqualification the nature of work done by the petitioners thereinwho were in confirmity with the academic qualifications required issame and therefore even on applying the same for equal pay forequal work, the recovery cannot be allowed since such recoverywould amount to discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The operative portion of the judgment of the Hon ‘ble Apex Court is as follows:-“9. It was then urged on behalf of the petitionersthat on principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’they were entitled to pay scale of Rs.330-560. Itwas pointed out that they have been performing thesame nature of work, which was being performed byother Pharmacists Grade-B who have been given thescale of Rs.330-560. The nature of work may be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ more or less the same but scale of pay may varybased on academic qualification or experiencewhich justifies classiciation. The principle of‘equal pay for equal work’ should not be appliedin a mechanical or casual manner. Classificationmade by a body of experts after full study andanalysis of the work should not be disturbedexcept for strong reasons which indicate theclassification made to be unreasonable. Inequalityof the men in different groups excludesapplicability of the principle of ‘equal pay forequal work’ to them.
The principle of ‘equal payfor equal work’ has been examined in State of M.P.v. Pramod Bhartiya (1993) 1 SCC 539 : 1993 SC(L&S) 221 : (1993) 23 ATC 657 by this Court. Before any direction is issued by the Court, theclaimants have to establish that there was noreasonable basis to treat them separately inmatters of payment of wages or salary. Then onlyit can be held that there has been adiscrimination, within the meaning of Article 14of the Constitution.” and ultimately it was held by the Apex Court that in the absence ofany fault on the part of the petitioners therein in fixing the pay, there is no justification for making the recovery. The saidjudgment of the Supreme Court was also subsequently reiterated bythe Supreme Court in one another case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana reported in 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 18 in thefollowing words:-“5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess therequired educational qualifications.
Operative part
Under thecircumstances the appellant would not be entitledto the relaxation. The Principal erried ingranting him the relaxation. Since the date ofrelaxation the appellant had been paid his salaryon the revised scale. However, it is not onaccount of any misrepresentation made by theappellant that the benefit of the higher pay scalewas given to him but by wrong construction made bythe Principal for which the appellant cannot beheld to be at fault. Under the circumstances theamount paid till date may not be recovered fromthe appellant. The principle of equal pay forequal work would not apply to the scalesprescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order asto costs.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
In view of the judicial dictum as laid down above and thesame having been followed by this Court consistently, the abovewrit petitions are allowed and the impugned orders directing therecovery and also the consequential orders of recovery are herebyset-aside. No costs. Consequently the connected WPMPs and WVMP areclosed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. SrkTo1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 0092. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 0063. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli Dist.4. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kizhapavur at Pavur Chathiram, Tirunelveli District.+ 1 CC To Mr.K.Ravichandrabaabu, Advocate SR NO.44379+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.44664Writ Petition No.13700 to 13702 of 2004 andW.P.M.P.Nos.909 to 911 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No771 of 2005 RS {CO}TP/1.9.08
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed partly without any order asto costs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 14.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 12 Aug 2008. The bench was P JYOTHIMANIWRIT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.