A.Ramasamy v. The Principal Accountant
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.(MD) No.22947 of 2016 A.Ramasamy ... Petitioner vs.
1.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), 361, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 018.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District.
3.The Head Master, Government Boys High School, A.Kalappur, Sivagangai District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 06.11.2015 in No.P10/5/11016720/ADK/252 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to grant special grade in the post of B.T.Assistant with all consequential benefits in the light of proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.3584/A2/2015, dated 15.06.2015, issued by the 2nd respondent within the time period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Rajasekar For R1 :Mr.P.Gunasekaran 1/16
For R2 and R3 :Mr.S.Shaji Bino
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 06.11.2015 and consequently, to direct the respondents to grant special grade pay in the post of B.T. Assistant. 2.1. The petitioner was appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on 08.07.1971. Later on, he was granted Selection Grade on 08.10.1981 on completion of 10 years, then Special Grade on 08.10.1991 on completion of 20 years in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Subsequently the petitioner was promoted in the post of B.T. Assistant (Social Science) on 20.01.1998. Then, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2008, after completing unblemished service for a period of 36 years.
2.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the government had issued G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 11.03.1997 in which it was ordered that the service in the Selection Grade of the lower post shall be counted for the Selection Grade in the promoted post, provided the Selection Grade of the higher post and the concession be allowed only at the first promotion level. Further, the government has also issued G.O.Ms. No.238 dated 26.06.1998 in which the above 2/16
Government Order was reiterated and it was directed that the service in the Selection Grade in the Secondary Grade Teacher and other equivalent post shall be counted for the award of Selection Grade in B.T. Assistant Tamil Pandit Post and that this concession be allowed only at the first promotion level, the Government Orders were issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department dated 20.02.1998. The petitioner further submitted in view of the above government orders, the second respondent vide proceeding dated 27.11.2000 granted Selection Grade in the post of B.T. Assistant with effect from 01.06.1998, hence the petitioner is contending that after 10 years in the B.T. Assistant post the petitioner is entitled to Special Grade Pay.
But the Accountant General has declined to grant the same and stated that the petitioner is not entitled to selection grade on 01.06.1998 and the same was issued wrongly. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to Special Grade after 10 years. But the petitioner is entitled to Selection Grade on 20.01.2008 but not Special Grade. Hence the respondent refused to grant Special Grade to the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The first respondent has filed counter retreating, the same stand stated in the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the petition. 3/16
4. After considering the rival submissions, this Court have given its anxious consideration. The Selection Grade Pay is granted if the employee is working in the same post without promotion for 10 years. Likewise, Special Grade Pay is granted if the employee is working in the same post without promotion for 20 years. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on 08.07.1971, on completion of 10 years the petitioner was granted Selection Grade on 08.10.1981 and on completion of 20 years the petitioner was granted Special Grade pay on 08.10.1991.
5. The petitioner would be completing 30 years on 08.10.2001, but in the meanwhile the petitioner was granted promotion in the post of B.T. Assistant (Social Science) on 20.01.1998. Hence the petitioner is entitled to Selection Grade pay in the post of B.T. Assistant on completion of 10 years i.e. 20.01.2008 but the respondents had wrongly conferred Selection Grade in B.T. Assistant on 01.06.1998. Consequent to the wrong fixing now the petitioner is claiming Special Grade Pay on 01.06.2008. As per rules the petitioner is entitled to Special Grade Pay in the post of B.T. Assistant on 20.01.2018, but the petitioner retired on 30.06.2008 itself, hence the petitioner is not entitled to Special Grade Pay. The petitioner is wrongly interpreting the G.O.'s. 4/16
6. The issue of selection grade and special grade under G.O.Ms.No. 216 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.03.1993, G.O.Ms.No.234 School Education (G) Department dated 10.09.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.210 School Education (G.1) Department, dated 14.08.2009 and other G.O's, was elaborately considered by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 3186 of 2016 in the case of Jothi Chandra and W.P.(MD) No.3187 of 2016 in the case of T. Vallimmai vide order dated 25.01.2022. This Court has also considered the issue in W.P.(MD)No.4029 of 2016 is the case of V.Robert, then in W.P.(MD)No.4929 of 2016 in the case of S.Kirubai, then in W.P.(MD)No.4928 of 2016 in the case of V.Ponnuthai, then in W.P.(MD)No.4927 of 2016 in the case of B.Kanagamani and then in W.P. (MD)No.18135 of 2019 in the case of T.Chinna Nadar and has declined the prayer of the petitioners' therein.
7. The concept of selection grade and special grade is to grant hike in the salary if the person is not getting any promotional opportunity. Any person stagnating in any post could be entitled to selection grade and special grade. If the person is not serving in the promotional post, the person cannot claim any benefit attached to the promotional post. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered in W.P.(MD) No. 3186 of 2016 is extracted hereunder: "7. The concept of selection / special grade is that the government employees are entitled to "selection grade" if the person is stagnating is 5/16
the same post without promotion for 10 years and entitled to "special grade" if the person is stagnating is the same post without promotion for 20 years. The G.O. Ms. No. 666 Finance (Pay Commission) dated 27.06.1089 was issued cancelling the selection / special grade. Thereafter the scheme of granting selection / special grade was reintroduced vide G.O. Ms. No. 304 Finance (Pay Commission) Department dated 28.03.1990. In partial modification in paragraph 9 of the G.O. 666, the G.O. 304 was issued granting the selection / special grade.
8. In Education Department prior to 01.06.1988 the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School Headmaster in Government Schools and Panchayat Union Schools are interchangeable and considered as same post. The grade pay of the Secondary Grade Teacher and the grade pay of the Primary School Headmaster are same, with an additional special pay to the Headmaster. After 01.06.1988 the post of Headmaster is a promotion post and in V pay Commission the Headmaster were paid Rs. 1400-2600 without special pay and the Secondary Grade Teacher were paid 1200-2040. The teachers who had worked in the Panchayat Schools / Government Schools in Secondary Grade Post were allowed to serve as Headmaster of Primary School with extra allowance to the post of Headmaster post. After 01.06.1988 the post of Headmaster is made as promotion post.
Therefore a claim was submitted to add the service of Secondary Grade Post and Headmaster of Primary School for calculating the selection grade and special grade. The government issued G.O. Ms. No. 1381 Education Department dated 05.10.1990 wherein selection / special grade was granted to teachers who were holding the HM post on 01.06.1988 be awarded selection / special grade in the revised scales on or after 01.06.1988 by computing the "Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary School HM prior to 01.06.1988". The G.O.
post of HM carries higher scale of pay above that of the Secondary Grade Teachers, those promoted as HM after 01.06.1988 shall be allowed fixation of pay in the post of HM as provided under Fundamental Rules 22B. The persons promoted after 01.06.1988 opposed to fix under Fundamental Rules 22B and they prayed to grant selection / special grade as granted to HM by taking both secondary grade service and HM post. Since the same was declined, those persons filed petition before Tribunal in O.A. No. 2899, 3009 and 3010 of 1989 and the Tribunal has held that the classification is wrong and set aside the paragraph 3 and 4 of the G.O. Ms. No. 1381.
9. Hence the Government issued a G.O. Ms. No. 300 Education, Science and Technology Department dated 07.04.1994 wherein the grant of selection / special grade in G.O. 1381 was quashed and the benefit already disbursed were ordered for recovery. In the G.O. it has been categorically stated that the service of HM post alone will be taken for granting selection / special grade. In other words, the Secondary Grade post will not be taken into account while counting the service for Primary School HM. Unfortunately, the G.O. Ms. No.300 dated 07.04.1994 was not brought to the knowledge of this Court at the earliest point of time and there was total mess in this issue.
10. In the meanwhile, the government issued G.O. Ms. No. 216 Finance (Pay Commission) Department dated 22.03.1993, extending the selection / special grade to the "Secondary Grade Teachers in Middle School", since they will not be having any promotional opportunities. It is pertinent to note that the G.O. is not stating to calculate both the Secondary Grade post + Primary School HM post to grant selection / special grade. It simply states to grant selection / special grade to Secondary Grade Teachers 7/16
working in Middle School, since they are not having promotional opportunities. Until this period the issue was settled, however later point of time this G.O. 216 dated 22.03.1993 was misinterpreted.
11. Thereafter, the issue started exploding when the teachers in order to retain the wrong benefits granted under G.O. 1381 (which G.O. was quashed by Tribunal) started filing writ petitions and the wrong started perpetuating. Writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 8079 / 2005 and vide order dated 28.04.2008 the writ petitions were allowed. In another writ petition vide order dated 18.04.2001 the government was directed to consider the claim. Since several writ petitions were filed and allowed, helplessness griped the government. Hence pending writ petitions the government issued G.O. Ms. No. 207 School Education (G2) Department dated 30.09.2008 and G.O. states that pension benefits shall be granted and the government would incur an additional expenditure of Rs. 1,87,93,225/- and this is subject to the out come of the pending writ petitions.
12. Then the issue turned to an extreme level wherein the G.O. Ms. No. 210 School Education (G2) Department dated 14.08.2009 was issued. In this the teachers prayed to calculate the Secondary Grade 10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2016 Post service + Primary School HM service and thereafter fix the service in Middle School HM post and grant Selection / Special Grade. The said G.O. granted the benefits to the persons mentioned in the G.O. Then in G.O. Ms. No. 190 School Education (G1) Department dated 12.07.2010 was issued extending to some more persons by taking the Secondary Grade post + Primary School HM and grant selection / special grade in Middle School HM post. A correction G.O. was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 230 School 8/16
Education (G1) Department dated 10.08.2010. Then G.O. Ms. No. 146 School Education (G1) Department dated 19.06.2012 was issued to some more persons to calculate Secondary Grade post + Primary School HM was taken to grant Middle School HM selection / special grade. In this G.O. it has been stated that more than six crores would be the financial implications for the 260 teachers. As pointed out supra the employee is entitled to selection / special grade if a person is "stagnating" in the same post. But now the teachers would be promoted as Primary School HM, then also they will demand to calculate the period of service in Primary School HM post. Then again the person would be promoted to Middle School HM, then also the person will demand to calculate both the secondary grade service + primary school HM and fix the same in Middle School HM post and grant selection / special grade. In short the entire service should be taken into account to grant selection / special grade. That too "along with promotion", that is the high light of the issue.
13. Thereafter numerous government orders were passed. This Court has passed an order in W.P. No. 29644 / 2003 and 29645 / 2003 dated 21.03.2008 covering 61 persons and to implement the order the G.O. Ms. No. 234 School Education (G2) Department dated 10.09.2009 was issued wherein, the Secondary Grade post + Primary School HM was calculated. Again based on court's order G.O. Ms. No. 270 School Education (G2) Department dated 20.09.2010 was issued. Likewise based on court's order, G.O. Ms. No. 216 School Education (G2) Department dated 30.12.2011, G.O. Ms. No. 179 School Education (Elementary2) Department dated 06.09.2013, G.O. Ms. No. 180 School Education (S.E. 3(1)) Department dated 06.09.2013, G.O. Ms. No. 181 School Education (S.E.3(1)) Department, dated 06.09.2013 were issued, wherein the Secondary Grade post + Primary School HM was calculated.
9/16
14. These G.O. were passed in a fond hope that this issue will come to an end, but the issue could not see the end at all, inspite of so many G.O.s
15. This Court has allowed several petitions and the government finally filed review application in Rev. Appl. No. 227 / 2015 and the same was referred to Full Bench. The review application was taken up along with several writ appeals and writ petitions, wherein it was held the issue cannot be reagitated again and has held that the benefits shall be notionally calculated and the monetary benefits shall be payable on and from 01.03.2017.
16. This Court rejected the claims in several petitions and one such case is the order dated 09.12.2015 passed in W.A. (MD) No. 312 / 2011 in Division Bench headed by Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice N. Kirubakaran has held in paragraph 5, "that the employees who were in service in 1997-1998 as well as in the year 2002 did not rise a little finger either at the time of when the original applications were filed in the year 1997-1998 or at the time when the original application were allowed by the Tribunal in the year 2002". And rejected the dead and stale claims.
17. Thereafter the Rev. Appl. (MD) No. 35 / 2018 dated 19.03.2018, W.A. 34 / 2017 dated 03.01.2019 and W.A. 73 / 2016 dated 03.01.2019 was passed dismissing the review applications / writ appeals filed by the government.
18. Under this background the present two writ petitions are considered. In W.P.(MD)No.3186/2016 the petitioner has attained superannuation and retired in the year 2006 and has filed the present writ petition in the year 10/16
2016, after a lapse of 10 years from the date of retirement. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3187/2016 attained superannuation and retired in the year 2006 and has filed the present writ petition in the year 2016, after a lapse of 10 years from the date of retirement. Hence this Court following the order dated 09.12.2015 passed in W.A. (MD) No. 312 / 2011, rejects the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and latches, since the dead and stale claims cannot be entertained.
19. The petitioners relied on G.O. Ms. No. 210, 190 and 146 and these G.O.s are passed in order to implement the orders of this Court. The petitioners ought to establish their right based on any provisions of law, rules, regulations and any government order passed based on the any policy decision of the government. In other words, if the government order is passed on the basis of the policy decision of the government i.e. G.O. passed in rem is applicable to all. The petitioners cannot claim any right to any government order which were passed in order to obey the orders of the Court i.e. government order passed to person specific / "in persona" cannot be cited to claim any right. In fact several writ petitions are filed citing the G.O.s which were passed to obey the orders of this Court, if that is discouraged then pendency of the writ petitions would be considerably reduced.
20. This Court is of the considered opinion each case ought to be dealt with on its own merits. In the present case, the writ petitioner in W.P. (MD)No.3186/2016 was regularized on 08.07.1977 in School Assistant Teacher post, had received Selection Grade on 08.07.1987 in the School Assistant Teacher post. Then promoted as Middle School HM on 15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2016 12.10.1988. Then the petitioner received Selection Grade on 12.10.1998 in 11/16
the post of Middle School HM. Then the petitioner is eligible for Special Grade on 12.10.2008, but since the petitioner retired on 30.04.2006, two years before the eligibility for Special Grade. Now the petitioner is seeking to take the two years from School Assistant Teacher post and grant Special Grade in the post of Middle School HM. Incidentally the petitioner has already received Selection Grade in the post of School Assistant Post. If the claim of the petitioner is accepted then the claim would be two selection grade for the same period which is absolutely illegal claim. Moreover as stated supra the selection / special grade cannot be granted once the promotion is granted to the petitioner.
21. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 3187 / 2016 was appointed as B.T. Assistant on 11.01.1982, received Selection Grade in the B.T. Assistant post on 10.01.1992 and the said disbursement of selection grade itself is wrong, since the petitioner was already promoted as Middle School HM on 21.12.1988. If the 1988 is taken as promotion date, then the petitioner is eligible for selection grade in the Middle School HM post on 21.12.1998, since the earlier selection grade fixation is wrong, this selection grade was not granted to the petitioner. The petitioner would be eligible for special grade on 21.12.2008, but the same was not granted, since two years prior to eligibility for special grade the petitioner retired from service on 20.12.2006.
Moreover, as stated supra the selection / special grade cannot be granted once the promotion is granted to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the definite opinion that the petitioners are not eligible to get selection grade / special grade after promotion by taking both "pre promotion" post and "post promotion" post and the claim is illegal and unjust enrichment.
12/16
22. In fact the Tribunal has rightly held at the earliest point of time while considering G.O.1381 that when the scale of pay is different for two services, then both services cannot be taken for calculating 10 years / 20 years, more so when one service has less pay and the other service has more pay. The Secondary Grade Teacher has less pay and the primary school Headmaster has higher pay and Middle school Headmaster has still more higher pay. Then, any two services or any three services cannot be taken to calculate 10 years or 20 years to grant selection grade or special grade respectively.
23. The teachers are seeking to grant selection grade and special grade by calculating the service in Secondary Grade Teacher post and the promoted post of Primary School Headmaster. Also claiming to calculate the Secondary Grade post and Primary School Headmaster post along with the Middle School Headmaster post and grant special grade. In short the teachers are claiming both the promotion and as well as selection grade and special grade for their entire service. The concept has entirely changed by this plea to calculate the entire service including the promotion post. The claim to grant Selection Grade / Special Grade after availing promotion is illegal and unjust enrichment. The basic concept of Selection Grade / Special Grade is tampered with to obtain illegal claim. The very concept of granting selection grade and special grade is buried by these kind of writ petitions. This Court is of the considered opinion that the teachers are either eligible for promotion or for Selection / Special Grade and the teachers are not eligible for both.
24. The wrong claim of selection grade / special grade by calculating two or three different services were the subject matter from 1991 onwards, the Government passed several orders to put an end to the claim, this Court 13/16
passed orders to put an end to the claim, but still several claims are arising until 2022. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that illegal claim should end and this Court is putting a big full stop to the illegal claims by this order.
25. For the reasons stated above the writ petitioners are not entitled to the benefits and the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
8. Moreover, the petitioner has filed this writ petition belatedly. Any stale and belated claim cannot be entertained as per the judgment dated 09.12.2015 passed in W.A. (MD) No. 312 / 2011 by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
9. Therefore, for all these reasons stated supra and by following the above judgments this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to Special Grade Pay in the post of B.T. Assistant, hence the same is declined. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 20.03.2025 Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No tmg 14/16
To:
1.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), 361, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District.
3.The Head Master, Government Boys High School, Kalappur, Sivagangai.
15/16
S.SRIMATHY, J.
tmg 20.03.2025 16/16