Madras High Court
M.Rajappan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 27 November, 2023
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 16.11.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
and M.P.No. 2 of 2010
1.M.Rajappan
2.G.Narasimhan
3.P.Manoharan
4.R.Ramesh
5.M.Sadasivan
6.T.Jagadeesan
7.P.V.Tamil Selvi
8.S.Natarajan
9.M.Rajendran
10.P.Meena
11.S.V.D.Rajan
12.A.Esthar Amma Olive
13.S.Vijayalakshmi
14.S.Thangavel
15.S.Parthiban
16.A.Muthukumaraseshan ... Petitioner
vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep., by Secretary to Govt.,
Finance Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
Fort St., George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep., by Secretary to the Govt.,
School Education Department,
Fort St., George, Chennai – 9.
3.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Erode District, Erode.
6.The Chief Educational Officer,
Madurai District, Madurai.
7.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Madurai,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
first respondent in relation to his proceedings issued in letter No.45113/Pay
Cell/2009-1, dated 17.08.2009, and quash the same in so far as the said
impugned Government letter denies personal pay of Rs.600/- to the
Headmasters of Higher Secondary School is concerned and issue a
consequential direction to the respondents to grant a personal pay of
Rs.600/- to the members of the petitioners Association as per the
G.O.Ms.No.720 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 17.12.1998,
continuously .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
For Petitioners : Mr.Saseetharan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravichandran AGP for RR1to6
Mr.Abhinav Parthasarathy for R7 ORDER
The instant Writ Petition had been filed challenging the proceedings
issued by letter dated 17.08.2009, and quash the same in so far as the said
impugned order denies personal pay of Rs.600/- to the Headmaster of the
Higher Secondary School and issue a consequential direction to the
respondents to grant personal pay of Rs.600 to the petitioner as per
G.O.Ms.No.720, dated 17.12.1998.
2. Heard Mr.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mr.S.Ravicharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 to 6 and Mr. Ashinav Parthasarathy, learned counsel
appearing for the seventh respondents.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioners are all working as Headmasters of Higher Secondary School,
some are working as Headmasters of Government Higher Secondary school,
Headmaster of Municipal Girls Higher Secondary School and Headmaster
of Corporation Higher Secondary School under the Madurai Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.720, Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
dated 17.12.1998 by granting personal pay along with the existing pay
scales of the Headmasters of High School and Headmasters of Higher
Secondary School at the rate of Rs.500 per month and Rs.600 per month
respectively. The said personal pay sanctioned above shall be considered as
pay for all purposes of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, City
Compensatory Allowance and Pensionary benefits. It was also further
ordered that the said personal pay granted under the said Government Order
shall apply to the Headmasters of High schools and Higher Secondary
schools in the Social Defence, Forest, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare,
Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare and Social Welfare
Department and also those in the Aided Institutions.
4. He would submit that these petitioners on their promotion, were not
granted the personal pay as ordered under G.O.Ms.No.720 and therefore,
they had made various representations. Since a clarification had been
sought for on various issues of pay pursuant to a Government Order issued
in G.O.Ms.No.234, dated 01.06.2009, the Principal Secretary to
Government in its letter dated 17.08.2009, had issued a clarification on the
said Government Order and in particular with regard to the lis, it was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
clarified that the personal pay drawn by the Headmasters of High Schools
and Higher Secondary Schools, who have joined in the post prior to
01.01.2006, had been directed to be taken into account for fixation of pay in
the revised pay scales and therefore, the individuals who were promoted as
Headmasters of High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools on or after
01.06.2009, are not entitled for the personal pay in the revised pay structure.
He would submit that the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.234, was
only an executive instruction, which cannot supersede the grant of personal
pay as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.720, which is a Special Pay that had been
ordered by the Government. To support his contention, he relied upon the
judgment of this Court made in W.P.(MD).Nos.4235 to 4239 of 2007, dated
13.03.2013 on that aspect and therefore, would contend that the clarification
issued by the first respondent is wholly improper and therefore, seek to set
aside the said clarification, in sofar it disentitles the Headmasters of High
Schools and Higher Secondary Schools from the benefit of the grant of
personal pay and consequently direct the respondents to grant personal pay
to the petitioners as envisages under G.O.Ms.No.720.
5. Countering his arguments, S.Ravichandran, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 would submit at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
the outset the petitioners have all been appointed to the post of Headmasters
only after 01.06.2009. He would submit that it is true that the Government
had issued G.O.Ms.No.720, granting personal pay as claimed by the
petitioners based upon the representations that had been made by the
association of Headmasters of High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools.
Such personal pay was granted taking into account the administrative
responsibility that is being shouldered by the Headmasters in addition to
the teaching duties. He would further submit that a committee appointed by
the Government made recommendations to revise the pay structures of
Government servants working in various departments. One such
recommendation was to dispense with the personal pay granted to certain
categories and adhoc personal pay granted to the Office Assistant and
Hospital Workers. While dispensing with such personal pay to avoid the
monetary loss to the incumbents who had already enjoyed the benefit of
personal pay, the Government had directed the personal pay drawn by such
employees to be absorbed while fixing the pay in the revised pay structure.
In view of such specific direction to absorb the personal pay in the revised
pay structure, the personal pay that had been drawn by such beneficiaries
have been included in the revised pay of the Headmasters of High Schools
and Higher Secondary Schools and their pay had been revised. Pursuant to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
the said recommendation, the Government had also framed Tamil Nadu
Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009, (2009 Rules) and the same has also be
notified. The same had not been challenged by the petitioners.
6. Further, he would submit that the pay scales of the Headmasters
have been revised under the said Rules by taking into consideration their
personal pay that had been enjoyed by them prior to 01.06.2009 and
therefore, the personal pay that had been granted under G.O.Ms.No.720, had
been made as part of their pay scales in view of the revision made under the
2009 Rules. Therefore, they do not have any loss by dispensing with the
personal pay that they have been enjoying prior to 01.06.2009. When the
revised pay had been made pursuant to the aforesaid Rules, they have
neither challenged the revised pay nor have been challenged the Rules,
pursuant to which such revised pay scales have been made. Therefore, he
would submit that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable as the
clarification given by the first respondent to G.O.Ms.No.234, had
culminated into the 2009 Rules and prays this Court to dismiss the Writ
Petition.
7.I have heard the rival submissions made by the respective counsels
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
8. It is an undisputed case that the Government by G.O.Ms.No.720
Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 17.12.1998, had granted personal pay
to the persons, who have holding the post of Headmasters in the High
School and Higher Secondary Schools considering the administrative
responsibility that had been shouldered by them. The Government in
G.O.Ms.No.234, on the recommendations of the committee appointed to
that purpose had decided to revise the pay scales of the Government
servants. Clause 11 of the said Rules envisages to dispense with the
personal pay that had been granted to certain categories and also adhoc
personal pay to certain categories. However, by dispensing with the said
personal pay, it was recommended to absorb that personal pay to those
categories in their revised pay scales, so that they do not suffer any
monetary loss. The Government pursuant to the said G.O., also seems to
have been notified the 2009 Rules, pursuant to which the pay scales of the
Headmasters of High School and Higher Secondary School have been
revised and while revising such pay scales as ordered by G.O.Ms.No.234,
the personal pay that had been received by them, pursuant to
G.O.Ms.No.720, had also been absorbed in the revised pay scales. This
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
revision of pay or the Rules pursuant to which such revision of pay namely,
2009 Rules had not been challenged to by the petitioner. What has been
challenged is only a clarification that had been given by the first respondent.
9. Further reliance placed upon on the judgment of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(MD).Nos.4235 to 4229 of 2007, dated 13.03.2013, where,
the learned Single Judge had directed the personal pay to be granted to five
of the petitioners, is sought to be applied to these petitioners also. In my
considered view, the same may not be a correct proposition. The said Writ
Petitions had been filed by the petitioners who had been appointed as
Headmasters prior to 01.06.2009, before these Rules came into effect.
Further, the learned Single Judge who had dealt with the matter had not
been appraised of the fact that pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.234, the Government
had notified the 2009 Rules. However, the learned Single Judge had
proceeded on the basis that the executive instructions given in
G.O.Ms.No.234, cannot supersede in G.O.Ms.No.720, which was traceable
to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to note that this
view that had been arrived at by the learned Single Judge in that Writ
Petition was primarily due to the fact that the learned Single Judge had not
been appraised of the fact that the Government Order had been given effect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
by issuance of the Rules, namely Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules,
2009. Therefore, aforesaid judgment cannot be said to be the correct
proposition of law.
10. In the present case, the petitioners were all appointed as
Headmasters after 01.06.2009. The Rules had been given effect to
retrospectively from 01.01.2006. The petitioners therefore cannot claim
parity with persons, who had been extended the grant of personal pay under
G.O.Ms.No.720. The absorption of pay scale and revision of pay for the
Headmasters in High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools had not been
denied by the petitioners. Further, 2009 Rules also takes away the personal
pay that had been granted to persons who have been promoted prior to
01.06.2009, w.e.f., 01.01.2006, since the revision of pay had been directed
to be made w.e.f.01.01.2006, absorbing the personal pay that had been
granted to the Headmasters of High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools.
11. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this Writ
Petition and the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. However, there shall
be no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
27.11.2023
pbn
Index/ Yes/No
Speaking order: Yes/No
Neutral citation: Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep., by Secretary to Govt.,
Finance Department,
Fort St., George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep., by Secretary to the Govt.,
School Education Department,
Fort St., George, Chennai – 9.
3.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Erode District, Erode.
6.The Chief Educational Officer,
Madurai District, Madurai.
7.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Madurai,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12/13
W.P.No.27339 of 2010
K.KUMARESH BABU,J.
pbn
A Pre-delivery order made in
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
