V PERUMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the legal representatives of one V. Perumal (deceased), the original unsuccessful writ petitioner and the appellant in the above appeal.

(2.) 2. 1. Brief facts of the case, so far they are relevant are that: V. Perumal was originally appointed as a part-time Craft Teacher in Aided Middle School, Puliampatti in the year 1960. Thereafter, his services were regularised and he was working as full-time Craft Teacher with effect from 1. 6. 1962. 2. 2. As per the recommendations of the One Man Committee, which was accepted by the Government by G. O. Ms. No. 1366, Education Department, dated 15. 9. 1986, the Craft Teacher with minimum educational qualification, viz. , S. S. L. C. shall be paid Secondary Grade Scale and those who did not possess minimum educational qualification were granted time for a minimum period of three years to qualify themselves with minimum educational qualification, viz. , S. S. L. C. 2. 3. V. Perumal duly qualified himself by passing S. S. L. C. Examination during April, 1989 and represented to the second respondent for revision of scale of pay as per G. O. Ms. No. 1366, Education Department, dated 15. 9. 1986. Thereafter, the third respondent, by order dated 2. 1. 1990, revised the scale of pay of V. Perumal on par with that of Secondary Grade Teachers with effect from 27. 4. 1989. In the meanwhile, the recommendations of the V Pay Commission came into force from 27. 4. 1989 and the scale of pay of V. Perumal was revised and fixed at Rs. 1200-30-560-40-2040. 2. 4. When the matter stood thus, the third respondent by proceedings dated 22. 8. 1990, which is impugned in the writ petition, set aside the earlier order dated 2. 1. 1990, on the ground that the V. Perumal does not possess Technical Teacher Certificate and the minimum qualification as contemplated by the One Man Committee, which was accepted by G. O. Ms. No. 1366, Education Department, dated 15. 9. 1986. Thus, while setting aside the proceedings dated 2. 1. 1990, the third respondent refixed the pay at Rs. 520/- per month and also proposed to recover the amount excessively paid to V. Perumal. Being aggrieved by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 22. 8. 1990, V. Perumal filed W. P. No. 19225 of 1990.

(3.) THE said writ petition (W. P. No. 19225 of 1990) was disposed of by this Court by order dated 6. 11. 1998 on the ground that the V. Perumal, having been conferred with a vested right by virtue of his revised scale fixed vide proceedings dated 2. 1. 1990, the third respondent ought to have given him an opportunity of being heard before reducing the scale of pay adversely and passing the consequential order proposing to recover the amount alleged to have been paid to him excessively. The learned Single Judge, thus, set aside the order dated 22. 8. 1990 and remitted the matter for fresh enquiry.