DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION Vs. A N KANDASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have challenged in this appeal the decision of the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal in OA No. 2010 of 1992.

(2.) Both the respondents were initially appointed as teachers in the Panchayat Union Primary School. In the year 1985, they were serving as teachers in the Middle School of the Panchayat Union at Alangombu. The said Middle School was upgraded as government High School with effect from 28/10/1985. The respondents opted for absorption in the government High School and therefore became a part of the secondary education service. Some junior teachers who had continued as teachers in the Panchayat Union Primary Schools were subsequently promoted as Headmasters in the Primary and the Middle Schools run by the Panchayat Union. They were allowed to draw their pay in the scale of Rs 2000-3200 from 1/6/1988, following GO No. 1381 dated 5/10/1990. The result was that they started getting more pay than the respondents and other teachers in the government High Schools who continued to draw the selection grade which happened to be less than the pay scale of the Headmasters in Primary and Middle Schools of the Panchayat Union. The respondents, therefore, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal with a prayer to direct the government to fix their pay on a par with the pay of the Headmasters in Panchayat Union Schools in the scale of Rs 2000-3200 with effect from 1/6/1988 and then to award selection/special grade and other benefits after taking into consideration their higher grade service period of three years and six months in Panchayatunion Schools. The contention of the respondents was that if they had continued in their parent unit, i. e. , Panchayat Union Schools, they would have become Headmasters in Primary/middle Schools on the basis of their seniority and thus entitled to the pay scale of Rs 2000-3200.

(3.) The tribunal relying upon GOs dated 27/1/1960 and 1/6/1978 held that teachers of Elementary and Middle Schools and teachers of High Schools constituted one service. It rejected the contention of the appellants that on introduction of the new system of education and the government upgrading Middle Schools as High Schools and taking them over and the respondents having opted for High School service, they became members of a different service. It further held that the respondents were entitled to be paid on a par with their juniors in the Elementary/middle School Headmasters' pay scale. Relying upon GO dated 5/10/1990, it also held that just as the teachers holding the posts of Elementary/middle School Headmasters were awarded selection/special grade by counting their entire lower cadre secondary grade service, the respondents should also be given that benefit to avoid discrimination. The tribunal allowed the application and directed the appellants to fix pay of the respondents on a par with secondary/special grade Headmaster with effect from 1/6/1988 and to give them consequential benefits also. Aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal, the Director of School Education and the Chief Education Officers have approached this court.