AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The first Petitioner, a Secondary Grade Teacher along with Management of the school have approached this Court with a prayer for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order, dated 19.10.2005 vide which the Respondents have declined to grant fix Special Grade Teacher status to the first Petitioner along with consequential benefits.
The first Petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 27.12.1984. The Petitioner on completion of 10 years of service was given Selection Grade on 27.12.1994. The case of the Petitioner is that according to the service condition applicable to the Secondary Grade Teacher on completion of 20 years of service, a teacher is to be place in the Special Grade. It was on 30.6.2002 that the District Elementary Educational Officer, declared the Petitioner as surplus staff due to decrease in the strength of the student in the school. The first Petitioner was accordingly directed to appear before the District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai for posting.
The management of the School being aggrieved by the order declaring the first Petitioner as surplus staff, filed W.P. No. 32606 of 2002, and interim stay was granted restraining the Respondents from transferring the Petitioner.
The Petitioner therefore continued to work with the second Petitioner. The representation made by the first Petitioner for the grant of special Grade Teacher Status for having rendered more than 20 years of service was declined by way of impugned order, only on the ground that the first Petitioner was declared surplus, therefore he is not entitled to the special grade. The second reason given in impugned order is that the Writ petition is pending in this Court.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners challenged the impugned order, on the ground that the action of the Respondents in denying the special grade on the face of it is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
The learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned order, as the matter regarding the posting of the first Petitioner is sub-judice before this Court. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the State, that in fact the first Petitioner is aggrieved by the non-grant of other benefits and not the special Grade status, as his pay has been fixed in the special grade.
On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Once according to the rules, 20 years of service has been rendered, teachers become entitled to grant of special grade. There is no reason to deny that benefit once it is approved only because the teacher is to be posted to some other school.
When the teacher has put in more than 20 years of service, merely because the teacher is liable to be transferred to other school, cannot be a ground to deny special grade. Similarly, pendency of Writ Petition against the order of transfer cannot be a ground to deny the Special Grade, which an employee is entitled to as a matter of right on completion of 20 years of service. The action of the Respondents in denying the special Grade to the first Petitioner therefore on the face of it, thus hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order is contrary to service rules and service conditions of the employee.
Consequently, the Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. A writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued to the Respondents, to release the special Grade to the first Petitioner forthwith, if not released. The Respondents are further directed to release the arrears in pursuance of the grant of special Grade to the Petitioner not later than two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.