M KULANDHAIVEL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.10092 of 2007, dated 02.12.2010 whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) THE appellant was initially appointed as secondary grade teacher by direct recruitment and he joined the post on 1.11.1966. He served in that post from 01.11.1966 to 06.10.1980. After completing B.A.B.Ed., in the year 1974, he was promoted to the post of Tamil Pandit on 07.10.1980. Since the appellant joined service as secondary grade teacher cum Headmaster on 1.11.1966, the appellant should have been awarded selection grade with effect from 1.11.1976. Similarly, selection grade in the post of Tamil Pandit was awarded with effect from 7.10.1990 and the special grade for that post should have been awarded with effect from 7.10.2000. But the same was not sanctioned to him. THE basic pay should have been fixed at Rs.2180/- instead of Rs.2120/- in terms of the Government order dated 01.06.1988. As per Rule 4(3) of G.O.Ms.No.666, dated 27.06.1989, the secondary grade teacher, B.T.Grade, Tamil Pandit and the Elementary School teacher are entitled to get the scale of pay of the Middle School Headmasters. But the Chief Educational Officer in his order dated 27.11.2004 erroneously relying on Rule 4(3) ordered to recover the amount which was already paid to the appellant. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3750 of 2004. In the said writ petition, this Court by order dated 26.11.2004 directed the respondents therein to consider the representation of the appellant and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.1804 of 2005, the impugned order came to be passed on 16.02.2007 by the second respondent confirming the earlier order of the Chief Educational Officer. Aggrieved over the same the present writ petition has been filed. On consideration of the submissions made on either side, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) KEEPING in view the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, we have carefully perused the materials available on record. We find that the writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P.No.3750 of 2004 at the earliest point of time, this Court directed the respondents only to consider the representation and even in the subsequent writ petition in W.P.No.1804 of 2005, there is no direction to the respondents to give a personal hearing. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order is liable to be quashed since no opportunity was given to him. Moreover, from the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, we find that the appellant misled the department to issue retrospective irregular pay fixation as the appellant derived benefit on misrepresentation of facts, no equity can be pleaded by the appellant. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed.