G JAYARAMAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order of the second respondent dated 02.07.2006, by which the claim of the petitioner for stagnation increment came to be rejected and also for direction to grant stagnation increment to the petitioner from 01.06.1991 and to revise his pension.

(2.) THE petitioner had worked as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kattumannarkoil and retired on 28.02.1994. He had obtained Special Grade in the Secondary Grade on 01.06.1981 and completed 10 years in his Special Grade on 31.05.1991. As per G.O.Ms.No.241 Finance (Oo.Ku.) Department dated 01.04.1981, he is eligible to get one stagnation increment from 01.06.1991 in addition to his basic pay in the scale of pay, Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900 until the date of retirement, viz., 28.02.1994. Accordingly, the pension amount has to be revised. a) THE petitioner has made a representation to the third respondent, the Headmaster of the School, on 23.05.2005, to revise his pension by adding the stagnation increment from 01.06.1991 to 28.02.1994 and reminders were sent to the third respondent on 10.07.2005 and on 07.09.2005. b) THEreafter, by referring to G.O.Ms.No.562 Finance (Oo.Ku.) Department dated 28.09.1998, the second respondent, by impugned order dated 02.07.2006, rejected the representation of petitioner to revise his pension on the ground that he is not eligible for stagnation increment, as he had completed 10 years after Special Grade. According to the petitioner, his eligibility is as per G.O.Ms.No.241 Finance (Oo.Ku.) Department dated 01.04.1981 and it is also clearly mentioned in the clarification letter of the Finance Secretary dated 23.07.1999 and 01.03.2000, that if the Secondary Teacher who has completed 10 years without any promotion is eligible to get one stagnation increment and that is also available under Rule 26-A and Sub-rule 15 of the Fundamental Rules. c) Nowhere it is stated that in respect of Secondary Grade Teachers, they are eligible if they have completed 10 years after reaching their maximum time scale of pay as wrongly stated by the second respondent in the impugned proceedings. It is also stated that one N.Chinnayan, retired Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School, Meensurutti, Perambalur District and K.Purushothaman, retired Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School, Neduncheri, Cuddalore District and D.Sambandam, retired Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School, Meensurutti, Perambalur District, who are retired and similarly situated persons as that of the petitioner were given the revised pension in the year 2004, but the respondents are discriminating the petitioner. d) It is also stated that some other Teachers, viz., B.Ramalingam, M.Kanagasabai, S.Jayaraman, who retired from Government Higher Secondary School, Lalpettai, Cuddalore District and P.Pattuchamy, who retired from High Secondary School, T.Neduncheri, Cuddalore District, R.Venkatesan, Government High School, Periyakuppam, have also been given the revised pension. THErefore, the present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the second respondent.

(3.) ON the facts of the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner has completed 10 years of service after the conferment of Special Grade, but still by referring to G.O.Ms.No.562 dated 28.09.1998, the second respondent has passed the impugned order that inasmuch as the petitioner has retired on 28.02.1994, he is not eligible for the stagnation increment. However, that is not stated in G.O.Ms.No.562 dated 28.09.1998. Under G.O.Ms.No.241 Finance (PC) Department dated 01.04.1981, the Government has granted the stagnation increment, which is as follows: