D PALAVESAMUTHU Vs. TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 10.01.2003 made in O.A.No.2662 of 2001, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he joined the service in Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department as Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1965 and continued as such till 1992. Since he was stagnating in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher for 10 years and 20 years, he was awarded Selection Grade and Special Grade respectively on completion of the said period of service. In the month of July,1992 he was promoted as Headmaster of Elementary School run by the Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department. Thereafter, he was entitled to draw the scale of pay due to the Elementary School Headmaster. After 01.06.1988, the post of Elementary School Headmaster had been made as a promotional post. Prior to that date, the post of Elementary School Headmaster is equivalent to Secondary Grade Teacher. Though he worked as Elementary School Headmaster prior to 1988, his status was only as a Secondary Grade Teacher. When he was actually promoted as Headmaster of the Elementary School in 1992, he was entitled to the scale of pay for the Headmaster of Elementary School. He retired in the year 2002. It is the claim of the Department that in 1992, when he had been promoted as Elementary School Headmaster, he was entitled to draw the ordinary scale of pay due to Elementary School Headmaster, but, he was drawing the scale of pay of Special Grade Headmaster from 1993. This was noticed by the Accountant General when his pension papers were scrutinized. The Tribunal, after finding that the petitioner was not entitled to special pay, upheld the objection raised by the Accountant General and dismissed his application; hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) IT is worthwhile to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SAHIB RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA (1995 AIR SCW 1780). In that case the Principal of College granted relaxation while fixing the revised pay scale of a Librarian. After finding that the Principal erred in granting him the relaxation, their lordships have concluded, "....it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay-scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to at fault. Under these circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant....."