Madras High Court
Prof.Dr.A.Veerappan vs The Secretary To Government on 28 November, 2023
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
Writ Petition No.19316 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
Writ Petition No.19316 of 2014
& MP No.1 of 2014
Prof.Dr.A.Veerappan ..Petitioner
vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Fort St George,
Chennai-09
2.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Law,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-09
3.The Director of Legal Studies,
Kilpauk,
Chennai-10
4.The Principal,
Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College,
Chennai-104 ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19316 of 2014
records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the third respondent
vide proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.78/A4/2012 dated 14.05.2013 and the
impugned order issued by the 4th respondent vide proceedings
Ka.Na.No.1341/A2/2013 dated 24.05.2013 and quash the same and
consequently, direct the respondents to pay the regular annual increment to
the petitioner and implement the revised scale of pay to the petitioner with
effect from 01.01.2006 as per the recommendations of the pay commission
with arrears of pay and other consequential monetary benefits in the revised
scale with interest within the stipulated time.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prem Narayan
For Respondents : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Raj Kumar, AGP
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking for issuance of a
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order
passed by the third respondent vide proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.78/A4/2012
dated 14.05.2013 and the impugned order issued by the 4th respondent vide
proceedings Ka.Na.No.1341/A2/2013 dated 24.05.2013 and quash the same
and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the regular annual
increment to the petitioner and implement the revised scale of pay to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19316 of 2014
petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006 as per the recommendations of the
pay commission with arrears of pay and other consequential monetary
benefits in the revised scale with interest within the stipulated time.
2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner worked as selection grade Lecturer in Dr. Ambedkar Government
Law College, Chennai and retired from service on 30.09.2005. The
Government issued G.O Ms.No.207, Law (LS) Department dated
30.09.2005 providing re-employment to the retired personnel with effect
from 01.10.2005 to 31.05.2006. By virtue of the same, the petitioner
continued in service till 31.05.2006. In the meanwhile, the pay revision
recommended by the IV Pay Commission came to be effected and the
salaries of the employees were revised with effect from 01.01.2006 vide
G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance Pay Cell Department dated 01.06.2009
retrospectively.
3. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, thereby seeking to
extend the benefit of the Pay Revision, which is made effect from
01.01.2006 since the petitioner was in re-employment from 01.10.2005 till
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19316 of 2014
31.05.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner has quoted the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “State of Kerala and Another Vs.
P.V.Neelakandan Nair and Others” reported in 2005 (5) SCC 561.
4. In fact, earlier, similar Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.13209, 17295 and
22063 of 2010 have been filed by the teachers whose services were
continued after their retirement on re-employment, seeking to grant of
annual increment and for implementation of the revised scale of pay with
effect from 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006 respectively on the basis of the
recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.
5.This Court, while dealing with the similar issue, has made
distinction between the Kerala State Service Rules and the Tamil Nadu
State Service Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the decision cited
supra, interpreted the Rule 60(C) (Part I) of the Kerala State Service Rules
wherein, the extension of service to retired employees was not called as re-
employment. In that case, the Rule itself had prescribed that no increment
or promotion during the re-employment period. But it did not refer to
benefit of wage fixation taking place during the period and hence, it was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19316 of 2014
held that the retired teachers therein were eligible for a wage revision.
However, so far as the teachers in the State of Tamil Nadu are concerned,
though teachers were allowed to work after their retirement, they were
asked to work on re-employment thereby, it is observed by this Court that
extending services of the teachers by way of re-employment in the State of
Tamilnadu is only by way of executive orders whereas, continuation of
service in the Kerala was by way of statutory rules and hence, this Court has
declined to extend the benefits. The relevant portion of the order passed by
this Court in WP.Nos.13209, 17295 and 22063 of 2010 dated 21.03.2011 in
paragraph no.11 of the said order is extracted below:
“11. In this State the teachers are allowed to work
based upon the executive order of the Government on re-
employment basis and not on the basis of continuation of
service. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner based upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court reported in AIR 2005(SC) 3066 (cited
supra) has no application to the facts of the case. The
petitioner's salary on reemployment was on the basis of
his last pay drawn less pension. Actually as per the
scheme of the State Government, a retired teacher is only
a pensioner and his services are utilised till the end of the
academic year on the promise that he will be paid his last
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19316 of 2014
drawn wages minus his pension. This cannot be compared
with the statutory rules framed by the Kerala State and the
interpretation of those service rules by the Supreme
Court.”
6. In view of the above findings of this Court which have become
final, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought for in the present
Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
dn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19316 of 2014
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Fort St George,
Chennai-09
2.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Law,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-09
3.The Director of Legal Studies,
Kilpauk,
Chennai-10
4.The Principal,
Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College,
Chennai-104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19316 of 2014
Dr.D. NAGARJUN, J
dn
Writ Petition No.19316 of 2014
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
