U. NARASIMHAN Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for counting his service for the period while the school was functioning as an recognised unaided school between 6.6.1974 and 31.5.1991 and to count the said period along with his further service for the purpose of calculation of pension, selection/special grade as well as other consequential service and retirement benefits in line with the order passed by this Court and by taking into consideration the relief granted to similarly placed persons.

(2.) It is the undisputed case of the parties that the petitioner was appointed as Higher Grade Teacher on 6.6.1974 in the unaided recognised and approved school at Anginugu Palangalathu Palli, Dindigul and he continued in the said post till the year 1985 and, thereafter, he was absorbed as Secondary Grade Teacher in 1985 and retired on 30.6.2009. It is the further case of the petitioner that the school was converted as aided school vide issuance of G.O. Ms. No.41 dated 29.4.1997 retrospectively from 1.6.1991 and for all purposes, the petitioner was in the employment of the aided school from 1.6.1991 till the date of his superannuation on 30.6.2009. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the superannuation of the petitioner, he was paid the retirement benefits for the period from 1.6.1991 to 30.6.2009 and not from his initial date of recruitment, viz., 6.6.1974. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 7.3.12 to the 1st respondents to count the service rendered by him for the period 6.6.1974 to 31.5.1991 as has been considered in the case of similarly placed persons and to grant pensionary benefits, which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 4.6.12. However, no orders have been passed. It is the further case of the petitioner that though his services was in a permanent vacancy, which was regularly inspected by the official respondents, however, the service of the petitioner was considered for the purpose of grant of selection grade and special grade and other service benefits. Once again the petitioner submitted a representation on 6.11.12 and, thereafter, on 24.2.17 and since no orders have been passed on the representations, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by issuance of G.O. Ms. No.41 dated 29.4.97, the school in which the petitioner was working was made an aided institution on and from 1.6.1991 and the school was permitted to continue with the five teachers, who were on the rolls of the school even during the period the school was functioning as an recognised unaided school and such being the case, the period of the service of the petitioner in the unaided recognised institution also ought to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the qualifying service for the purpose of service and retirement benefits. However, the service of the petitioner from 6.6.74 to 31.5.91 has not been counted for the purpose of service and retirement benefits inspite of similarly placed persons being granted the said benefits.