Subbian .R v. The Principal Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.(MD) No.8504 of 2024 R.Subbian ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education (G1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Accountant General Office of the Accountant General (A and G), 361, Anna Salai, Chennai - 18.
1/12
3.The Director of Elementary School Education, O/o.The Director of Elementary School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
4.The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Tirumangalam, Madurai District - 625 706.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide No.P17/4/11727950/ADK 458 dated 18.12.2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to sanction revised pension and other consequential benefits to the petitioner as per G.O.(Ms). No.213, School Education Department (Elementary) dated 02.12.2022. For Petitioner : Ms.G.K.Chitra Devi 2/12
For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan - for R1, R3 & R4 Additional Government Pleader Mr.P.Gunasekaran - for R2 Standing Counsel
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide No.P17/4/11727950/ADK 458 dated 18.12.2023 and consequently, direct the respondents to sanction revised pension and other consequential benefits to the petitioner as per G.O.(Ms). No.213, School Education Department (Elementary) dated 02.12.2022.
2. Heard Ms.G.K.Chitra Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. 3/12
3. By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
4. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of Accountant General dated 18.12.2023 to the following effect :
"Since the retired officer has not completed 10 years of service in Selection Grade Assistant as on 31.05.1988. He is not eligible for selection grade in MSHM. Hence revision as per G.O.No.213 dated 02.12.2022 may not be applicable in this case."
5. In the impugned order, it is stated that G.O.(Ms)No. 213 dated 02.12.2022 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. So it is claimed by the second respondent that in order to claim the benefit under G.O.(Ms)No.213 dated 02.12.2022, the petitioner 4/12
ought to have completed 10 years of service in Selection Grade Assistant as on 31.05.1988. It is further claimed that even in the communication between the District Educational Officer and the second respondent, it is stated that the petitioner who was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher was not holding the post of Headmaster of Middle School as on 01.06.1988 and he was promoted as Middle School Headmaster with effect from 25.06.1997. The Government has clarified that in order to get the benefit of Selection Grade as per G.O.(Ms)No.213 dated 02.12.2022, consequent to the earlier G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education (G1) Department, dated 14.08.2009, the person should have been holding the post of Middle School Headmaster as on 01.06.1988.
6. But, in G.O.(Ms)No.213, School Education, dated 02.12.2022, the following has been stated in paragraph No.5 : 5/12
6/12
7. Subsequently, the list of 612 beneficiaries has also been attached in the said Government Order. The petitioner's name is found place in Sl.No.176 and he is the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.6209 of 2014. Even though he was not holding the post of Middle School Headmaster, but he has got 10 years of service by counting his services as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Primary School and the subsequent period, for which, he was holding the post of Middle School Headmaster.
8. Now, the only dispute that is raised by the second respondent is that the petitioner ought to have been holding the post of Middle School Headmaster as on 01.06.1988. But, the petitioner has been promoted to the said post only on 25.06.1997. But the Government makes a cut off date as 01.06.1988 to count all those services which have been rendered earlier. It has also got a provision to include the subsequent period for which an individual 7/12
has been holding the Middle School Headmaster post, if the period of service rendered by an individual prior to 01.06.1988 is deficit of 10 years. The confusion is caused by understanding the date 01.06.1988 as the outer limit to count the 10 years of service of the individuals. Since the Government Order patently says that 10 years of service is also inclusive of the period of service rendered in the promotional post of Middle School Headmaster for all those persons who have not completed 10 years of service in their earlier post, the Government ought not to have given a clarification vide its Government letter No.2468/EE1(1)/2023-5, dated 19.07.2023 and ROC.No.599/A1/2023 dated 28.11.2023 and clarification No.1 that the individual should be holding the post of Middle School Headmaster as on 01.06.1988. Having given such a clarification in Sl.No.1, in the Government Letter ROC.599/A1/2023, dated 28.11.2023, it has been concluded that the petitioner Subbian, is eligible to get the revised pensionary benefits. 8/12
9. Since the clarificatory note given by the Government is against Sl.No.1. The earlier Government Letter No. 2468/EE1(1)/2023-5, dated 19.07.2023 has caused confusion and the second respondent had an occasion to issue the impugned order. But, even though the earlier Government letter has got the confusing content, the clarification given in the Letter in ROC. 599/A1/2023 dated 28.11.2023, clarifies that the petitioner is entitled to the revised pensionary benefits. Apart from that, it does not mandate that a person, who is eligible to get the benefits of Government Order should be holding the post of Middle School Headmaster as on 01.06.1988.
10.In fact, in the subsequent communication made in ROC.599/A1/2023 dated 28.11.2023, the District Educational Officer has made a patent remark that the individual was not holding the post of Headmaster in Middle School as on 01.06.1988. So, the result of the said communication which would convey a 9/12
message to the second respondent that the petitioner is eligible to get the revised pensionary benefits, irrespective of the fact that he was not holding the post of Middle School Headmaster as on 01.06.1988. So, no more clarification is required.
11. Hence, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide No.P17/4/11727950/ADK 458 dated 18.12.2023 is set aside.
12. However, a direction is given to the first respondent to clarify this point by sending a fresh communication to the Accountant General, so that, the very same issue shall not recur in future cases. The second respondent is directed to sanction the revised pensionary benefits to the petitioner. No costs. 03.04.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM 10/12
To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education (G1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Accountant General Office of the Accountant General (A and G), 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-18.
3.The Director of Elementary School Education, O/o.The Director of Elementary School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
4.The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Tirumangalam, Madurai District - 625 706.
11/12
R.N.MANJULA , J.
RM Order made in W.P.(MD)No.8504 of 2024 Dated:
03.04.2024 12/12