Madras High Court
The Chief Educational Officer vs S.Mohammed Ansari on 8 February, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2020
and CMP(MD) No.6615 of 2020
1.The Chief Educational officer,
Trichy, Trichy District.
2.The Headmaster
Government Board Higher Secondary School
Valanadu, Manapparai Taluk
Trichy District. :Appellants
Vs.
1.S.Mohammed Ansari
2.The Accountant General
(Accounts and Entitlements)
No.261 Anna Salai
Chennai. : Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.22223 of 2016 dated 24.04.2019.
For Appellants :Mrs.S.Srimathy
Special Government pleader
For Respondents : Mr.V .Panneer selvam for R1
Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R2
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants aggrieved over
the order of the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition filed
by setting aside the proceedings dated 03.01.2014 with a consequential
direction to release the pensionary benefits in the cadre of Secondary
Grade Teacher.
2. The learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, made
reliance upon the order of the Division Bench in a similar matter. Infact,
the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants did not have
any serious objection.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants
submitted that the Government Order passed in G.O.1366 dated
05.09.1986 would govern the case and therefore, the appeal deserves to
be allowed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2020
4.The learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner submitted
that the Government Order can only be prospective and therefore, right
accrued cannot be taken away with respect to pay fixation and the
qualification.
5. The learned Judge rightly taken into consideration the order of
the Division Bench, which governs the field. It appears that the order of
the Division Bench has given effect to. The writ petitioner joined the
office of the appellants as Office Assistant on 27.07.1963. He was
appointed as Drawing Master on 27.09.1975. His pay was fixed on par
with the Secondary Grade Teachers. Thereafter, he was awarded
selection and special grades. He retired from service on 30.06.2002.
6. The impugned proceedings have been initiated in pursuant to the
audit objection made. The respondent has neither been heard nor the
copy of the said objection has been given to him. The impugned
proceedings itself has been initiated and concluded in the year 2014,
though the respondent has retired on as early as on 30.06.2002.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2020
7. The learned Single Judge, while relying upon the order of the
Division Bench, was pleased to hold that the said G.O., is prospective.
We are in concurrence with the reasoning given by the learned Judge,
who has taken into consideration the law decided by the Division Bench.
Certainly, a right has been vested with the respondent. It is not his fault
that the appellants fixed the pay fixation by granting pay on par with the
Secondary Grade Teachers. Thereafter, he was awarded selection and
special grades. It is too late in the day to contend that mistake has crept
in and therefore, the same requires to be rectified. The very action has
been initiated, after the respondent attained superannuation and that too
after more than a decade. The relieving order sought to be relied upon
cannot be applicable to the case of the respondent. After-all, he did work
as the Drawing Master and thereafter awarded selection and special
grades. Thus, looking from any perspective, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the
writ appeal is dismissed. The amount recovered from the respondent
shall be returned within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The same time
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2020
limit would also apply for refixation. No costs. Consequently connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.M.S., J.] & [S.A.I, J.]
08.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
1.The Chief Educational officer,
Trichy, Trichy District.
2.The Headmaster
Government Board Higher Secondary School
Valanadu, Manapparai Taluk
Trichy District.
3.The Accountant General
(Accounts and Entitlements)
No.261 Anna Salai
Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH, J
AND
S.ANANTHI, J
RR
Order made in
W.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2020
08.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
