IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.1271 of 2010 M.Selvarajan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director of College Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 6. 3.The Accountant General, Chennai. 4.The Joint Director of College Education, Kovail Division, Coimbatore -18. 5.The Principal, Chikkaiya Naicker College, Erode -4. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 07.08.2009 made in Na.Ka.No.4937-A4-2009 passed by the 4th respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant the scale of pay of Rs.14,940/- w.e.f.01.01.1996 to the petitioner herein in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 03.03.2008. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mrs.E.Renganayaki,G.A. O R D E R
The petitioner is at present 80 years old. He claims that he was working as Physical Education Director in the 5th respondent College. After completing his service, he got superannuated as early as 30.01.1988. The petitioner sent a representation though his principal to grant pay scale in terms of G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 03.03.208. On receipt of the said representation received from the Principal of the 5th respondent College dated 01.07.2009, the fourth respondent informed the petitioner that since he was not in service as on 01.01.1996, his request to consider for the benefits arising out of G.O.Ms.No.53 Higher Education Department dated 03.03.2008 will not be granted to him.
2. The petitioner contends that the date i.e. 01.01.996 indicated in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 03.03.2008 does not mean that it will apply prospectively and that it will also apply to teachers who were in service before 01.01.1996. This court is surprised that such an argument is advanced by the petitioner. G.O.Ms.No.53 came to be issued by the State Government on 03.03.2008 on the basis of the Career Advancement Scheme being extended to Assistant Director of Physical Education and Director of Physical Education in colleges pursuant to the recommendation made by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Accepting the recommendation made by the UGC, the State Government had issued the order. However, in the order itself, it was stated that the revision of pay scales recommended by UGC for teachers working in Government Aided colleges will be available as on 01.01.1996. It is not clear as to how the said Government Order can apply to the petitioner.
3. It must be noted that subsequent to the recommendation made by the Mehrotra committee, the UGC recommended Career Advancement Scheme for all college teachers. The said scheme was accepted by the State Government on the basis of Central funding and accordingly, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos.1784,1785 and 1786 Higher Education Department dated 17.12.1988. The petitioner at the time of introduction of the Career Advancement Scheme was not even in the aided college service. Therefore, the question of a Career Advancement Scheme being made applicable to the petitioner does not arise.
4. Subsequent to the introduction of the Career Advancement Scheme, the scales of pay of the college teachers were revised pursuant to the Rasthogi Committee’s recommendation and the State Government issued Go.Ms.No.111 to 113 Higher Education Department dated 24.03.1999. It is only in G.O.Ms.No.113 the revision of scales were made for Physical Directors who were in service as on 01.01.1996. Therefore, it is pursuant to the said revision of pay scales, a further order came to be passed by the State Government by G.O.Ms.No.53 which the petitioner is now seeks to get himself covered by it.
5. When the petitioner was in service, there was no scheme for any Career Advancement and the petitioner’s career came to an end on 31.01.1998 itself. Hence the question of filing the writ petition after 22 years after his retirement on the basis of a non-existent Government Order will not arise.
6. In the light of the above, the writ petition is clearly misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.
28.01.2010
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
svki
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of College Education,
DPI Complex, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 6.
3.The Accountant General,
Chennai.
4.The Joint Director of College Education,
Kovail Division,
Coimbatore -18.
5.The Principal,
Chikkaiya Naicker College,
Erode -4.
K.CHANDRU,J.
svki
W.P.No.1271 of 2010
28.01.2010