R. Duraisamy & Ors. Vs. Director of School Education & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.11650-11652 of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 27.1.97 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in R.A. Nos. 51-53
of 1995 in O.A. Nos. 4690 to 4692 of 1994)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 27.1.97 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in R.A. Nos. 51-53
of 1995 in O.A. Nos. 4690 to 4692 of 1994)
Petitioner: R. Duraisamy & Ors.
Respondent: Director of School Education & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.11650-11652 of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 27.1.97 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in R.A. Nos. 51-53
of 1995 in O.A. Nos. 4690 to 4692 of 1994)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 27.1.97 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in R.A. Nos. 51-53
of 1995 in O.A. Nos. 4690 to 4692 of 1994)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 12, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. T. Raja, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. R. Mohan, Senior Advocate, Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy and Mr. A. Mariarputham, Advocates for M/s. Arputham, Mr. Aruna & Co., Advocates with him for the Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
Mr. R. Mohan, Senior Advocate, Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy and Mr. A. Mariarputham, Advocates for M/s. Arputham, Mr. Aruna & Co., Advocates with him for the Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 14 – Teachers in Elementary and Middle schools – Such schools upgraded to High schools – Transfer to High Schools – Teachers absorbed there – Those continuing in Elementa-ry Schools, later promoted as Head Masters – Claim of equal pay scale. Held that having been absorbed in High Schools, they ceased to be part of cadre of Elementary Schools. Hence, no relief. (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Direc-tor of School Education & Anr. v. A.N. Kandaswamy & Anr. (JT 1998 (7) SC 342) (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
RAJENDRA BABU, J.
1. The petitioners before us were appointed as teachers in the Panchayat Union Elementary School under the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service. When they were working in such Middle Schools, they were upgraded as High Schools and the petitioners were transferred to the High Schools. The petitioners were absorbed in the High School service but some of the teachers, who were stated to be junior to the petitioners and who continued in the Panchayat Union Elementary Schools, were subsequently promot-ed as Head Masters in the Primary and the Middle Schools run by the Panchayat Union. They were allowed to draw their pay in the scale of Rs.2,000-3,200 from 1.6.88 pursuant to G.O. issued on 5.10.1990. The result was that they started getting more pay than the petitioners did.
2. In those circumstances the petitioners and others approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) for fixation of their pay on par with the Head Masters in the Panchayat Union Schools. They contended that apart from the unfairness of being paid lesser salary, had they con-tinued in the Panchayat Union Schools, they would have become Head Masters in the Primary/Middle Schools on the basis of their seniority and thus would have been entitled to draw such higher scales. The Tribunal relied upon certain Government orders and held that the teachers of the Elementary and Middle Schools and the teachers of the High Schools constituted one service and, therefore, granted relief to them in some of the applica-tions filed before it. But in subsequent applications filed before the Tribunal, the matter was reviewed and the cases of the petitioners were distinguished and their claim has been rejected. It is against this order that the petitioners have now come before this Court.
3. It is clear from the narration made above that the petitioners had been working in the High Schools on the upgradation of the Middle Schools to High Schools. If they were really aggrieved, they should have chosen to get back to their parent schools and should have derived the benefits as were being given to those who continued in the Panchayat Union Schools. On their absorption in the High Schools, they ceased to be a part of the cadre of teach-ers serving in schools run by the Panchayat Union. The protec-tion granted by the Government on which the Tribunal had earlier placed reliance was only in relation to pay and awarding of selection or special grade and that would not constitute one single cadre. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioners is unfounded.
4. Identical question was also considered by this Court in Direc-tor of School Education & Anr. v. A.N.Kandaswamy & Anr., (JT 1998 (7) SC 342) and following the said decision, for the reasons stated therein, we find no merit in these petitions and the same stand dismissed. No costs.
1. The petitioners before us were appointed as teachers in the Panchayat Union Elementary School under the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service. When they were working in such Middle Schools, they were upgraded as High Schools and the petitioners were transferred to the High Schools. The petitioners were absorbed in the High School service but some of the teachers, who were stated to be junior to the petitioners and who continued in the Panchayat Union Elementary Schools, were subsequently promot-ed as Head Masters in the Primary and the Middle Schools run by the Panchayat Union. They were allowed to draw their pay in the scale of Rs.2,000-3,200 from 1.6.88 pursuant to G.O. issued on 5.10.1990. The result was that they started getting more pay than the petitioners did.
2. In those circumstances the petitioners and others approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) for fixation of their pay on par with the Head Masters in the Panchayat Union Schools. They contended that apart from the unfairness of being paid lesser salary, had they con-tinued in the Panchayat Union Schools, they would have become Head Masters in the Primary/Middle Schools on the basis of their seniority and thus would have been entitled to draw such higher scales. The Tribunal relied upon certain Government orders and held that the teachers of the Elementary and Middle Schools and the teachers of the High Schools constituted one service and, therefore, granted relief to them in some of the applica-tions filed before it. But in subsequent applications filed before the Tribunal, the matter was reviewed and the cases of the petitioners were distinguished and their claim has been rejected. It is against this order that the petitioners have now come before this Court.
3. It is clear from the narration made above that the petitioners had been working in the High Schools on the upgradation of the Middle Schools to High Schools. If they were really aggrieved, they should have chosen to get back to their parent schools and should have derived the benefits as were being given to those who continued in the Panchayat Union Schools. On their absorption in the High Schools, they ceased to be a part of the cadre of teach-ers serving in schools run by the Panchayat Union. The protec-tion granted by the Government on which the Tribunal had earlier placed reliance was only in relation to pay and awarding of selection or special grade and that would not constitute one single cadre. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioners is unfounded.
4. Identical question was also considered by this Court in Direc-tor of School Education & Anr. v. A.N.Kandaswamy & Anr., (JT 1998 (7) SC 342) and following the said decision, for the reasons stated therein, we find no merit in these petitions and the same stand dismissed. No costs.
