K. PRAKASI Vs. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's husband Mr. Rethinam was appointed as Craft Instructor in the third respondent's school on 20.01.1977. At that time, he had not completed S.S.L.C. But he had Craft Training Course Certificate. As per the qualification prescribed then, S.S.L.C. was not mandatory and it was enough if the candidate had the Craft Training Course Certificate and VIII Standard Pass. That is why, since Mr. Rethinam was eligible as per the then prescribed qualifications, he was appointed as a Craft Instructor. Thereafter, in the year 1978, he had undergone the Technical Teacher Course and passed the examination concerned. Therefore, the scale of pay was fixed as 280 -5 -320 -0 - 450. His service was made permanent with effect from 01.04.1978. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1366 Education Department dated 15.09.1986, wherein the Government directed that the qualification for the post of Craft Instructor shall be S.S.L.C. pass, apart from Technical Training Course. In the said Government Order, it was further directed that the Craft Teachers, who had already been appointed with VIII Standard qualification shall be allowed time for minimum three years to qualify themselves and after that they shall be allowed Secondary Grade Scale of Pay of Rs.610 -20 -730 -25 -955 - 30 -1075. But Mr.Rethinam did not pass S.S.L.C. within the time so stipulated by the Government Order. Thus, the Secondary Grade Scale of Pay was not fixed for Mr. Rethinam . While in service, Mr.Rethinam died. All his efforts by making repeated representations to fix Secondary Grade Scale of Pay failed. While so, after the demise of the said Rethinam, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent to fix Secondary Grade Scale of Pay to her husband and to pay arrears as well as to revise the pensionary benefits. The said representation was rejected by the second respondent by order dated 19.06.2009. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court, with this Writ Petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and also perused the records carefully.

(3.) IN the case on hand, since Mr. Rethinam was appointed prior to 15.09.1986, the said Government Order is not applicable to him and thus, though Mr. Rethinam had not passed S.S.L.C. within three years from the date given force by the said Government Order, that will not deter Mr. Rethinam from getting Secondary Grade Scale of Pay. That is the view taken in those two Writ Petitions also. In such view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.