A. Arivudaiyappan and Others vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

Heard Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and with their consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 263 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 22.7.2013 in so far as it extends the monetary benefit from 1.4.2013 in so far as the petitioners are concerned and the consequential Proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 6.1.2014 effecting recovery from the salary of the petitioners.

3.1 The petitioners 1 and 2 are working as Senior Lecturers in the District Institute of Teacher Education, Research and Training at Perundurai, Erode District (DIET). The petitioners 3 to 13 are working as Lecturers in the same Institution. The Government of Tamil Nadu, vide Government Order dated 01.01.1996, introduced the revised scales of pay, based on the recommendation of the VI Pay Commission. The scales of pay were identical for the Headmasters of Higher Secondary School and the District Educational Officers and they were placed in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500 and the same scale was extended to the Senior Lecturers viz., the petitioners 1 and 2. The Post Graduate Assistants were given the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500 and this scale of pay was extended to the Lecturers working in DIET viz., the petitioners 3 to 13. The benefit of the revised pay scale from the VI Pay Commission recommendation was extended to the petitioners in the light of the Government Order issued in G.O. Ms.No.122, School Education Department, dated 06.08.2002, which states as follows:-

Vernacular Matter ommited here

3.2. There is no dispute with regard to this aspect of the matter and the petitioners were granted the scale of pay equivalent to those two posts in the School Education Department. During 2007, the Government of Tamil Nadu, framed the Service Rules for Senior Lecturers and Lecturers in DIET vide G.O. Ms.No.133, School Education Department, dated 14.06.2007. In the said Government Order, the scale of pay prescribed for Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools/District Educational Officers was extended to Senior Lecturers and the pay of P.G. Assistants was extended to the Lecturers in DIET.

3.3. The Government of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O. Ms.No.358, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 20.08.2008, constituted an Official Committee, for making necessary recommendations for the revision of pay scales and allowances of State Government employees and Teachers including the employees of Local Bodes based on the decisions of the Central Government on the recommendation of the VI Central Pay Commission. The Committee which was constituted by the State Government was requested to examine the decision of the Government of India on the revision of pension, family pension, retirement benefits and to make necessary recommendations. The Committee was also directed to take into consideration the local conditions and the present relativities. The Committee submitted its recommendation, which was accepted and the Government Order in G.O. Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009 was notified. The existing scale of pay in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-200-10500 was revised at Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4600/- and so far as the existing scale of pay of Rs.8000-275- 13500 is concerned, the same was revised at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-.

3.4 The Government, subsequently passed G.O. Ms.No.23, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 12.01.2011, by referring to G.O. Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009 and G.O. Ms.No.270, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010. By virtue of the said Government Order No. 23, the revised pay scales were extended to the Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools/District Educational Officers and P.G. Assistants with effect from 01.01.2006 notionally and with monetary benefit from 01.01.2011. However, in the said Government Order, the equivalent posts viz., the post of Senior Lecturers and Lecturers in DIET were not specifically mentioned. Nevertheless, the petitioners were entitled to the said benefit on account of the fact that they were drawing the same scale of pay prior to revision of scales of pay. The Principal of the DIET extended the benefit of G.O. Ms.No.23, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 12.01.2011 and revised the scales of pay of the petitioners by extending the monetary benefits with effect from 01.01.2011 and notional benefit from 01.01.2006.

3.5 It appears that in respect of Senior Lecturers and Lecturers working in other DIETs in the State, they have not been extended the benefit of G.O.23 referred supra, on the ground that the posts of Senior Lecturers and Lecturers did not find place in the Government Order. This appears to have lead to the representations being submitted by the Associations, Senior Lecturers and Lecturers working in the various District Institute of Education and Training.

3.6 Those representations were directed to be considered by a Pay Grievance Redressal Cell constituted by the Government vide G.O. Ms.No.123, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 10.04.2012 and the said Pay Grievance Redressal Cell recommended the case of those like that of the petitioners for grant of the revised scales of pay as given to the Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools/District Educational Officers and P.G. Assistants, pursuant to which, the Government passed the impugned order dated 22.07.2013 in G.O. Ms.No.263, Finance (Pay Cell) Department.

3.7. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 22.07.2013, it is seen that the Committee did not specifically state that the petitioners and other similarly placed persons are eligible for monetary benefit only from the date of the Government Order. The purpose for referring to the decision of the Committee was to consider as to whether the posts held by the petitioners viz., Senior Lecturers/Lecturers were equivalent to the posts of Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools/District Educational Officers/ P.G. Assistants. This having been done, the petitioners ought to have been granted the same benefit which was granted vide G.O. Ms.No.23 dated 12.01.2011. However, the Government, while passing the impugned order, granted the monetary benefit only with effect from 01.04.2013. Therefore, the petitioners are aggrieved by that portion of the order.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were drawing same scale of pay in the pre-revised scale of pay as mentioned above and hence the petitioners are automatically entitled for the revised scales of pay pursuant to G.O. Ms.No.23, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 12.01.2011. It may be true that the posts held by the petitioners were not specifically mentioned in the said G.O. Ms.No.23. Nevertheless, in G.O. Ms.No.122, School Education Department, dated 06.08.2002, the Government has clearly quoted the posts and this has continuously being implemented and the posts of Senior Lecturers/Lecturers were treated on par with that of the posts of Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools/ P.G. Assistants respectively. Therefore, for no fault committed by the petitioners, the posts held by them were left out from being specifically mentioned in G.O. Ms.23 dated 12.01.2011. That by itself will not be a ground to deny the monetary benefit to the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2011 as extended to the incumbents holding the posts with identical scale of pay. That apart, the impugned order dated 22.07.2013, does not assign any reason as to why the monetary benefits are restricted and it was given only from 01.04.2013. This is also one more reason to hold that the Government Order dated 22.07.2013 to that extent is unsustainable. In fact, the Principal of the Petitioners Institution initially rightly understood the scope of G.O. Ms.No.23 and extended the monetary benefits. In the light of the above conclusion arrived at by this Court, there is absolutely no justification for any recovery.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Government order in G.O. Ms.No.263, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.07.2013, insofar as it restricts the monetary benefits with effect from 01.04.2013 is quashed. Consequently, the impugned order of recovery dated 06.01.2014 also stands quashed. Since the petitioners obtained an order of interim stay of the impugned proceedings by order dated 24.02.2014, no recovery has been effected. The respondents are directed to extend the monetary benefits with effect from 01.01.2011 as extended to the incumbents holding the post with identical scales of pay as given in G.O. Ms.No.23 dated 12.01.2011.

No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.