S.Avudaiyappan v. The Director of School Education,College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 07-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.48340 of 2006(O.A.No.897 of 2001)S.Avudaiyappan.. PetitionerVersus1.The Director of School Education,College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.2.The Chief Educational Officer,Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.3.The Headmaster,Government High School,Vattakudi (North), Pattukottai TK,Thanjavur District... Respondents. Prayer: Original Application No.897 of 2001 filed before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the fileof this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.48340 of 2006,seeking for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to awardthe secondary grade cadre pay scale and arrears of pay for theperiod of service rendered by the petitioner in the place of HigherGrade from 30.6.1967 to 26.8.1970 by treating the said service asSecondary Grade, as qualified Secondary Grade Teacher and furtherdirect the respondents to count the period of service from 30.6.67to 26.8.70 rendered by the petitioner in the place of Higher GradeService along with Secondary Grade. For Petitioner: Mr.K.ThennanFor Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government Pleader O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondentsto award the Secondary Grade cadre pay scale and arrears of pay forthe period of service rendered by the petitioner in the Higher Gradeservice, from 30.6.1967 to 26.8.1970, by treating the said serviceas Secondary Grade Service. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner who was a trainingqualified Secondary Grade teacher had been posted in the post ofHigher Grade Teacher, from 30.6.1967 to 26.8.1970. Later, he hadbeen promoted as a Secondary Grade Teacher, on 27.8.1970. From27.8.1970 to 13.12.1984, the petitioner had served in MadukkurPanchayat Union in Tanjore District. Thereafter, on 13.12.1984, hehad been absorbed into High School, for administrative reasons,while upgrading the Panchayat Union Middle School, Vattakudi North,as a High school. Thereafter, the petitioner had continued in theHigh School, as a Secondary Grade teacher, without any promotion,till his retirement, on 30.10.1997, on his attaining the age ofsuperannuation. While the petitioner was in service, in MadukkurPanchayat Union, he was allowed to serve as an Elementary SchoolHeadmaster, for six months, during the year, 1982. Some of theteachers who were junior to the petitioner were promoted asElementary School Headmasters and were awarded Selection/SpecialGrade Elementary School Headmaster pay from 1.6.1988, by countingtheir earlier Secondary Grade service, as well as their service asElementary School Headmasters. Therefore, the petitioner, who issenior in the Secondary Grade, is entitled to get Selection/SpecialGrade Elementary School Headmaster's scale of pay, from 1.6.1988, onpar with his juniors in his parent unit of Madukkur Panchayat Union.Since the petitioner is fully qualfiied as a Secondary Grade teacherand had served in the place of Higher Grade Teacher, from 30.6.1967to 26.8.1970, he is entitled to get the same service benefits, as aSecondary Grade teacher, including the Seniority, Pay arrears,Selection/Special grade, pension and other consequential benefits. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, thelearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placedbefore this Court, an order, dated 3.4.2009, passed by this Court,under similar circumstances, in W.P.No.43235 of 2006, wherein it washeld as follows:"3.It is brought to my notice by the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners that inO.A.Nos.282, 283 and 3441 of 1993 (A.Ilangovan Vs.The Director of Elementary Educational and others),the Hon'ble Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, whileconsidering a similar matter passed the followingorder:-"Indeed, there cannot be any intelligible https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ difference between the Secondary Grade Certificateholders served in the Higher Grade place after1.1.71 or prior to 1.1.71. This is the well settledprinciple in a catena of decisions of the SupremeCourt. It has been held by the Supreme Court in adecision reported in Vol.II SC SLJ 498 that equalityof opportunity for the purposes of seniority,promotion and like matters of employment isavailable only for persons who fall subsequentlywithin the same class or unit of service. Thefundamental right of equality means that person inlike situation under like circumstance are entitledto be treated alike. What is enjoined is that allcitizens in matter of service under the State shallbe treated alike under like circumstances andconditions. The primary aim is to prevent any personor class of persons from being singled out as aspecial subject for purposeful or invidiousdiscrimination or hostile treatment. The purpose isto ensure similarly and equitable treatment andidentity of treatment in matters relating to initialengagement, during continuance of that enjoyment andat the terminal end of that enjoyment. Thisprinciple has been laid down in the decisionreported in A.I.R. 1957 PAT 617, AIR 1962 SC 36.The pivotal question in the present case iswhether the teacher similarly circumstance in thesame class or service or unit are treated alike. Thefactual position is that the teachers similarlysituated in the same class category and unit aretreated unequally. In other words, the equals aretreated as unequals. Therefore, the question ofhostile discrimination will arise. Moreover, in theinstant case, fixing the cut off date as 1.1.1971itself is arbitrary and unreasonable in view of htedecisions reported in 1988 (2) CAT 250 and 1988(3)SLJ 53.When the Secondary grade qualified teacherservice period in the place of Higher Grade istreated as Secondary Grade from 1.1.71 the sameshould also be extended to the Secondary Gradequalified teacher serving in the Higher grade priorto 1.1.71 also. Otherwise, the same would amount toclear discrimination.In the facts and circumstances of the case, theapplications are allowed and we direct therespondents to grant secondary grade scale of pay tothe applicants for the period of service of theapplicants in the Higher Grade place with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Secondary Grade qualification and it be counted asSecondary Grade service for the purpose ofseniority, selection/special grade and forpromotional opportunities to the higher post. Allconsequential service and monetary benefits shall bemade within two months from the date of receipt ofthis order, or a copy thereof."It has been submitted that the said order of this Court had not beenchallenged and it had become final. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshas not refuted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the orderpassed by this Court, in W.P.No.43235 of 2006, dated 3.4.2009, thisCourt is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs,as prayed for in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writpetition is allowed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.The Director of School Education,College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.2.The Chief Educational Officer,Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.3.The Headmaster,Government High School,Vattakudi (North), Pattukottai TK,Thanjavur District.+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 29625TS(CO)km/3.8.Writ Petition No.48340 of 2006