High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 16..02..2008CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRAandThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRUW.P. Nos. 38363 to 38370 of 2003andW.P.M.P. Nos. 46565, 46567, 46569, 46571, 46573, 46575, 46577 and 46579 of 20031)The State of Tamil Nadurep.by the Secretary to Government,School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2) The Director of School Education, Chennai-6.3) The Director of Non Formal and Adult Education, Chennai 600 006. .. Petitioners 1 to 3 in WP. Nos. 38363, 38364, 38365, 38366 and 38367 of 2003. 1) The Director of Non Formal and Adult Education,Chennai-6. .. 1st Petitioner in W.P.Nos 38368 to 38370/03 2) The District Adult Education Officer, Virudhunagar. ..2nd Petitioner in W.P.No.38368/03 The District Adult Education Officer, Erode. .. 2nd petitioner in WP.No.38369 and 38370/03Vs.Basheer Ahamed Khan .. 1st Respondent in WP. No. 38363 of 2003.A.Parasuraman .. 1st Respondent in WP.No.38364 of 2003. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.Kalaignana Kambeeram .. 1st Respondent in WP.No.38365 of 2003S.Madasamy .. 1st Respondent in WP.No.38366 of 2003S.Nanjundan .. 1st Respondent in WP.No.38367 of 2003S.Madasamy .. 1st Respondent in WP.No.38368 of 2003P.Kalaignana Kambeeram .. 1st Respondent in WP.No.38369 of 2003Basheer Ahamed Khan .. 1st Respondent in WP.No.38370 of 20032) The RegistrarTamilNadu Administrative TribunalChennai-104. .. 2nd Respondent in all Wps. These Petitions under Article 226 of the constitution of Indiapraying that in the Circumstances stated therein, and in theaffidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue aWrit of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orderdated 22.10.02 of the Hon'ble TamilNadu. Administrative Tribunal madein, O.A.No.128 of 1997 ( in WP.No. 38363/2003)O.A.No.129 of 1997 ( in WP.No. 38364/2003)O.A.No.130 of 1997 ( in WP.No. 38365/2003)O.A.No.131 of 1997 ( in WP.No. 38366/2003)O.A.No.132 of 1997 ( in WP.No. 38367/2003)O.A.No.5273 of 2002 ( in WP.No. 38368/2003)O.A.No.5272 of 2002 ( in WP.No. 38369/2003)O.A.No.5271 of 2002 ( in WP.No. 38370/2003)respectively and quash thesame. For Petitioners: Mr. S. Rajasekar, AGP For Respondent 1: Mr. S. Mani https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by K.CHANDRU, J.)Heard the arguments of Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader representing the petitioners and Mr. S. Mani,learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and have perusedthe records.2.All these writ petitions are filed by the State representedby the Secretary to Government, School Education Department againstthe common order dated 22.10.2002 passed by the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 128 to 132 of 1997 and O.A. Nos.5271 to 5273 of 2002 respectively. The contesting respondents in allthese writ petitions instituted the Original Applications seeking fordirection to the writ petitioner to pay salary to the firstrespondent in all these petitions for the period from February 1996to July 1997 during the period in which they had worked in the Non-Formal and Adult Education Department. 3.The first respondent State by G.O. (Rt) No. 1410 EducationDepartment dated 01.9.1988 created 21 posts of Technical Assistantsto work in the project work of Rural Functional Literacy Project inTamil Nadu which had cent percent financial assistance from theGovernment of India. Subsequently, under the orders of theGovernment of India, State Adult Education Project as well as RuralFunctional Literacy Project were disbanded by G.O. (Rt) No. 1Education Department dated 04.01.1993. As the projects were closedby the orders of the Government of India, all the Project staffexcepting 8 Technical Assistants, who were working in various schemeswere redeployed. But the first respondent in all the writpetitions, who were working as Technical Assistants did not have anyteaching experience and could not be accommodated in any school forteaching work. They were ousted from service from 01.02.1996 inview of the disbandment of the project. During this period,the Director of Non-formal and Adult Education Department recommendedthat these Technical Assistants may be appointed as Junior Assistantskeeping in view their service in RFLP for a long period and they canbe accommodated in the School Education Department. The petitionerState accepted the recommendation and appointed these contestingrespondents as Junior Assistants in the School Education Departmentafter granting necessary relaxation in terms of their age andcommunal roster with further assurance that after getting theconcurrence from Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, their serviceswill be regularised. Accordingly, the contesting respondentsjoined the School Education Department and subsequently, got theirservices regularised. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The grievance of the contesting respondents was that evenunder G.O. Ms. No. 1 Education Department dated 04.01.1993 by whichthe RFLP was wound up, they were directed to be absorbed in otherGovernment Departments and also job protection was given to thesepersons. Even by letter dated 14.02.1996, then Additional Secretaryto Government authorised the District Adult Education officer to drawand disburse the salary to 8 Technical Assistants. Therefore, whenthey were not paid salary to the period in which they were absorbed,they filed the above O.As. claiming salary for the period fromFebruary 1996 to July 1997. The Tribunal held that though thecontesting respondents have worked during the said period, theDistrict Adult Education Officers were not able to draw salary forthe period from February 1996 to July 1997 inspite of rendering workand this was only because of the administrative delay in sanctioningthe amount. Even in the interim direction dated 05.11.1998, the writpetitioner was directed to consider the claim of the applicants andwhen that was not forthcoming, a Contempt Application came to befiled. The Tribunal held that in view of job guarantee given by theState, they were entitled to be continued in the service until properabsorption into various Government Departments were made and in thatview of the matter, the Tribunal, by the common order dated22.10.2002, allowed the Original Applications and directed thepayment of salary to be paid to the applicants / first respondent inall these petitions from February 1996 to July 1997. It is againstthis common order, the present writ petitions have been filed asnoted already.5.The only ground taken by the petitioner State is theadministrative delay in their absorption and in getting the exemptionfrom the Government. Even though the common order of the Tribunalwas dated 22.10.2002 there was a delay of more than 1 year and 2months in moving the writ petitions, which has not beensatisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Merely because therewas administrative delay, that by itself will not entitle thepetitioner granting appointment to the contesting respondentsespecially when there has been a job guarantee to these persons byG.O. Ms. No. 1 Education Department dated 04.01.1993. When thepetitioners had given employment to 13 persons out of 21 by employingthem as Secondary Grade Teachers and Drivers, etc., there is noreason why the appointment to these respondents alone should bedelayed thereby making them virtually starve without anyremuneration. It is too late for the petitioners to come and arguethat after 14.02.1996, they were not in service and, therefore, theyare not entitled to be paid salary. We find that the Tribunal hasdone substantial justice to the contesting first respondent in allthese petitions and has clearly given direction to the writpetitioner State to carry out their own scheme for job security andsuch a guarantee cannot be denied by pleading mere administrativedelay in implementing the orders of the Government. We do not findany justification to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.In view of the above, the writ petitions are devoid ofmerits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they aredismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Thepetitioner is directed to implement the orders of the Tribunal withina period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargriTo1) The Secretary to Government of TamilNadu School Education Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai 600 009.2) The Director of School Education,Chennai-6.3) The Director of Non Formal and Adult Education, Chennai-6.4) The District Adult Education Officer. Virudhunagar.5) The District Adult Education Officer, Erode.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.8488+1 cc To M/s.S.Mani, SR.8224W.P. Nos. 38363 to 38370 of 2003 ksk [co]gkg/17.3