K SURESH KUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is submitted by the petitioner that he had passed B. Com. , degree in October 1982 in Madurai Kamaraj University and B. Ed. , degree in June 1987 from Annamalai University. The petitioner was appointed as Single Part Time Vocational Instructor on 16. 11. 1982 and he was paid the salary as per the order of the third respondent, dated 21. 4. 1983. The petitioner was made as double Part Time Instructor from 21. 3. 1983 and he has been functioning as such in the fifth respondent School. The petitioner and other Vocational Instructors (full time) were brought into regular service by G. O. Ms. No. 712, dated 28. 5. 1990 with effect from 1. 4. 1990, and by the order of the third respondent, dated 21. 3. 1991, the petitioner was given the said benefit from 1. 4. 1990.

(2.) IT is further submitted that as per the above order the petitioner was paid Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600 scale of pay, along with all other allowances. The said scale of pay was given to the petitioner till 31. 12. 1993. However, by the impugned order G. O. Ms. No. 273 Education, dated 7. 4. 1994, the first respondent illegally ordered that 1387 double part time Vocational Instructor posts, which are brought under regular time scale of pay, be converted under lump sum remuneration of Rs. 900/- per month and continued up to 30. 9. 1994, and consequently from 1. 6. 1994 to 29. 6. 1994 the applicant was paid Rs. 900/- per month as consolidated pay. It is further submitted that the petitioner's service has been regularized in accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 712 Education Department, dated 28. 5. 1990, along with other similarly placed persons. Thereafter, the petitioner has ceased to be a part time Instructor and he had become a permanent teacher in the Department with proper scale of pay.

(3.) WHILE so the first respondent had issued G. O. Ms. No. 834, Education Department, dated 23. 9. 1994, without awaiting the decision from the Tribunal and the High Court of Madras challenging the earlier order. It also denies the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The said Government order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Further, by the said Government order regularization of the petitioner's service from 1. 4. 1990 has been unilaterally taken away. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the said Government order which is in violation of the fundamental rights, under Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.