L. GURUNATHAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to proceedings O.Mu. No 114394/D2/E3/09 dated 21.12.2009 of the 1st respondent herein and consequential letter O.Mu No 2061/A1/2009 dated 3.2.2010 of the 2nd respondent herein and consequential letter Na.ka No 58/2008 dated 17.6.2011 of the 3rd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to count the matriculation service rendered by the petitioner for the period 27.10.1980 to 23.7.1992 for pay fixation and pensionary benefits with all attendened benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that on 27.10.1980 petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in St.Marris Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Sembium, Chennai -11. On 01.06.1982 petitioner was promoted as Teaching Assistant in Middle Sec. in the aforesaid school. On 22.07.92 the petitioner resigned the said job and joined as B.T. Assistant in the 3rd respondent school. Since the petitioner has worked 10 years continuously without any break and proper Service Register was maintained in the St.Marris Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Sembium, Chennai -11 and based on the G.O.Ms.No 143 dated 30.1.1987, the 2nd respondent herein by proceedings dated 04.03.1996 awarded selection Grade with effect from 23.07.1992 by calculating the service rendered by the petitioner in St.Marris Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Sembium, Chennai -11. It is the further case of the petitioner that though Selection Grade was awarded as early as from 23.07.1992 the 2nd respondent has not awarded the Special Grade. In the year 2008, an objection was raised in the Audit inspection by the Zonal Audit office, School Education, Madurai that service rendered by the petitioner in the Matriculation School should not be taken into account for pay fixation and Selection Grade was wrongly given to the petitioner and hence, the excess payment should be refunded. Aggrieved against the order of recovery in Audit inspection, on 22.06.2009 the petitioner has made an appeal. Without issuing any notice or afford opportunities, the 1st respondent by proceedings in O.Mu. No 114394/D2/E3/09 dated 21.12.2009 informed to the 2nd respondent herein that the service rendered by the petitioner in the matriculation Service could not be count for Pay fixation and pensionary benefits and confirm the quarry raised in the audit objections and further directed the 2nd respondent to recover the excess amount. The 2nd respondent, by letter in O.Mu No 2061/A1/2009, dated 03.02.2010 directed the 3rd respondent school to act as per the order of the 1st respondent herein. The 3rd respondent herein by letter in Na.ka No 58/2008, dated 17.6.2011, directed the petitioner to repay the excess amount immediately. Aggrieved against the same the writ petition has been filed.

(3.) When the matter was taken up for hearing on 28.06.2011, this Court admitted the main writ petition and granted order of interim stay.