Madras High Court
The State Of Tamilnadu vs S. Shanmugavelu on 5 October, 2021
W.A. No. 797 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A. No. 797 of 2016
&
C.M.P. No. 10497 of 2016
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by its Principal Secretary
to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
3. The District Elementary Educational
Officer,
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam. ..Appellants
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 797 of 2016
S. Shanmugavelu
S/o. S. Saravanamuthu,
BT Assistant,
Panchayat Union Middle School,
Arpakkam, Kollidam Union,
Nagapattinam District. ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 22.07.2015 passed in
W.P. No. 21735 of 2015.
For Appellants :: Mr.K.V. Sajeev Kumar
For Respondent :: Mr.G. Sankaran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
The present writ appeal has been preferred as against the order dated
22.07.2015 passed in W.P. No. 21735 of 2015.
2. The respondent was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant
(Junior Grade) in Elementary Education on consolidated pay on 17.06.1991
in a sanctioned post and later brought into regular time scale of pay with
effect from 01.09.1992. Based on the order passed by this Court in W.A.
No. 221 of 1991 etc batch dated 30.07.1999, G.O.Ms. No. 336 School
Education (M1) Department dated 30.12.2009 came to be issued and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 797 of 2016
respondent's service was regularised in the post of Secondary Grade
Assistant from the date of initial appointment i.e, 17.06.1991 and was
granted regular time scale of pay on that basis. However, the Director of
Elementary Education, issued proceedings dated 20.04.2010 stating that the
date of initial appointment would be taken into account only for the purpose
of time scale of pay, Selection Grade and Special Grade, but not for the
purpose of seniority. Aggrieved over the said proceedings, the respondent
filed the writ petition and the same came to be disposed of by the impugned
order with the following directions:
“9. The second respondent is directed to pass fresh order
in the light of the judgment dated 30.07.1999 made in W.P.Nos. 221
of 1991 etc batch and G.O.Ms. No. 336 School Education
Department dated 30.12.1999 by taking into account the date of
initial appointment of those Teachers, who were appointed under
G.O.Ms. No. 1524 Education (M-1) Department dated 12.11.1990
for seniority. The second respondent is directed to pass
appropriate orders in the above terms within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. “
Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal has been preferred
by the Government.
3. Heard both parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 797 of 2016
4. Relying upon the earlier orders of this Court, the learned Single
Judge had held that when the appointments are neither irregular nor illegal,
the initial date of appointment shall be taken into account for the purpose of
seniority. Eventhough the learned Government Counsel attempted to
distinguish the order passed in W.P. No. 221 of 1991 etc batch based on
which G.O.Ms. No. 336 dated 30.12.2009 came to be issued on the ground
that those teachers are regular appointees and the respondent/writ petitioner
was appointed on consolidated pay, this Court is not inclined to go into the
issue whether the teachers appointed have got to be brought under time
scale of pay and whether the initial date of appointment needs to be taken
into account for the purpose of granting the relief.
5. Taking note of the fact that identically placed persons have
been given the benefit of the order dated 30.07.1999 in W.P. No. 221 of
1991 etc batch and the Government had issued G.O. Ms. No. 336 dated
30.12.2009 taking into account the date of initial appointment of the
teachers for the purpose of seniority, the same yardstick has got to be
applied to the respondent/writ petitioner also. Hence, we find no reason to
interfere with the order under challenge and the writ appeal is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 797 of 2016
No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J.)
nv 05.10.2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 797 of 2016
AND
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
nv
W.A. No. 797 of 2016
05.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
