M. SIVAGANESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Post Graduate Teacher in the fourth respondent school. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Middle Grade Graduate Teacher in the fourth respondent school on 21/12/2002 as per G.OMs.No.79, School Education Department, dtd. 14/6/2002 in an approved post. The vacancy arose on account of the voluntary retirement of one Mr.M.Sundarrajan vide order, dtd. 13/12/2002 issued by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent school is a Recognized Aided Denomination Minority school.

(2.) The third respondent vide letter dtd. 6/1/2003 requested the Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur to convert the said Secondary Grade vacancy as a Middle Grade Graduate Teacher. The third respondent vide proceedings, dtd. 11/3/2005 granted approval for the petitioner's appointment from 1/6/2003 on consolidated pay of Rs.4,000.00per month following G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education Department, dtd. 27/6/2003 and also following G.O.Ms.No.125, school education department, dtd. 12/11/2003 and G.O.Ms.No.130 School Education Department, dtd. 27/9/2004. Later, as per G.O.Ms.No.99 School Education Department, dtd. 27/6/2006, the third respondent vide his proceedings, dtd. 17/10/2007 granted regular time scale of pay of Rs.5500.00175-9000 from 1/6/2006. Subsequently, on 21/1/2008 the petitioner was promoted as a Post Graduate Teacher in the same school. Though the petitioner pay was converted to regular time scale of pay from 1/6/2006, the petitioner's name was not included in Teachers' Provident Fund and any pension scheme.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was wrongly placed on consolidated pay. The scheme of consolidated pay would arise only in respect of the appointment approved vide G.O.Ms.No.4, School Education (X2) Department, dtd. 19/1/2004, which governs only the vacancies arising from 1/6/2003 and the appointments made therein. In the case of the petitioner, the post was an approved vacant post as on 21/12/2002, which is much before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.4. The further contention of the petitioner is that he ought to have been paid time scale of pay instead of consolidated pay and the petitioner ought to be included in the regular pensionary scheme. The petitioner was granted time scale of pay from 1/6/2006 instead of 21/12/2002. In the meanwhile, Government of Tamil Nadu had issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.430, dtd. 6/8/2004, wherein, it has been stated that the employees appointed on or after 1/4/2003 are entitled to get only contributory pension. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition.