S.Geetha, v. The Director Of Elementary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.24428 of 2015 S.Geetha ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vikravandi, Villupuram District.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 12.09.2012 for stepping up of scale of petitioner on par with her junior K.Sumathi with retrospective effect with all consequential and other attendant benefits including arrears of salary, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner :
Mr.G.Sankaran For Respondents :
Mr.S.Gunasekaran, Government Advocate
ORDER
By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2.The petitioner was appointed as secondary grade teacher in the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Service on 05.10.1988 and was promoted as Elementary School Headmaster on 26.06.2006 and got further promotion as B.T. Assistant on 16.06.2008. The petitioner claims that she was granted incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed. degree in the year 1995 and also for M.A. degree in the year 2004. The petitioner would further state that Tmt.K.Sumathi, who got appointed on 01.12.1988 was promoted as Primary School Headmaster on 05.11.2007 and got further promotion as B.T. Assistant on 01.06.2010 and she was granted incentive increment for B.Ed. in the year 2010 and M.A., in the year 2012.
3.The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that though Tmt.K.Sumathi was appointed subsequent to the petitioner, she has been conferred with more benefits and the petitioner, in this regard, submitted a representation dated 12.09.2011, praying for pay parity with the said person and though it has been forwarded to the second respondent, no orders have been passed and hence the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition.
4.Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the proposal has been forwarded by the third respondent to the second respondent, the petitioner is yet to be favoured with any response and hence prays for appropriate orders. 5.Per contra, Mr.S.Gunasekaran, learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner is making claim, based on G.O.Ms.No.234 dated 01.06.1988 and therefore, it should be decided along with the batch.
6.In response to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prayer sought for by the petitioner has nothing to do with the above said Government Order and prays for early consideration of petitioner's grievance. 7.This Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, directs the second respondent to act on the proposal sent by the third respondent with regard to the representation submitted
by the petitioner dated 12.09.2011 in accordance with law and pass orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi To
1. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vikravandi, Villupuram District.
+1cc to Mr.G.Sankaran, Advocate, S.R.No.41773 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.41207 W.P.No.24428 of 2015 KM(CO) CA(24/08/2015)