N BASKAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the services with the first respondent as Secondary Grade Treacher in the Amir Jamal Government Aided High School, Idayankulam, Tirunelveli District on 20.1.2001. He was called for counselling for post of Secondary Grade Teacher to be held on 4.12.2009 by the Teachers Recruitment Board at Trichy. He was allotted to the Primary School, Mavalavadi, Thellar Union, Thiruvannamalai District by proceedings of the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 039981 dated nil. 12.2009. It is stated in the said proceedings that proper appointment order will be issued to all the selected candidates on 14.12.2009 by the District Primary Education Officer of the concerned District. Since there was a By-election on 19.12.2009 for the Vandavasi Constituency in Thiruvannamalai District, no appointment order was issued to any of the candidates on 14.12.2009. It was stated that appointment orders will be issued to all candidates only on 22.12.2009. The petitioner, on the basis of the information, the relieving order from his earlier school with effect from 21.12.2009 was received and came to the Office of the second respondent at Thiruvannamalai on 22.12.2009, to collect the appointment order and to join duty on the same day i.e., 22.12.2009. However, no appointment order was issued on 22.12.2009 and on 23.12.2009 to any candidates by the second respondent due to administrative reasons. The school was closed for Half yearly Examination from 24.12.2009 to 3.1.2010. The Additional Assistant Primary Education Officer, Thollar Union issued an order dated 28.12.2009, permitting him to join duty on 4.1.2010 and he joined duty on 4.1.2010. The petitioner was working in the Aided School and he was contributing for provident fund. He made a representation on 18.1.2010 to the Additional Assistant Primary Education Officer to open and issue the provident fund number and the same was forwarded to the second respondent herein and it was also recommended to condone the 13 days break in service i.e., from the date of relieving from Amir Jamal Government Aided High School to the joining date in the Panchayat Primary School, Thellar. However, it was rejected by an order dated 19.5.2011 of the second respondent, citing the ground that the period of relieving from the Aided School to date of joining in Mavalavadi Primary School on 4.1.2010, is not related to Government Service. As the request of the petitioner was turned down, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 16.9.2011 and the same is still pending.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was in continuous service from the Aided School to the Government School and is protected as per the Pension Rules and the Government Orders. He further submitted that his wages for the period was also in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and it is due to the administrative delay on the part of the second respondent in issuing posting orders to the petitioner, the petitioner could not join duty immediately. He further contended that in terms of Rules 24 and 25 of the Pension Rules, provision is available for condoning the delay of break-in-service. Rules 24 and 25 of the Pension Rules, are extracted as follows:

(3.) The Government has filed a counter and they relied upon the Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which is extracted below: