S RAMAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is submitted by the petitioner that he was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant, on contract basis, on 2.11.87, by the second respondent, by his proceedings in Mu.Ka.No.38967/A5/87, dated 28.10.87. The petitioner was possessing B.Sc., and B.Ed., degrees at the time of his appointment. The service of the petitioner was regularized with effect from 29.11.90, by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 22.2.91. Though the petitioner was eligible to be regularized from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. from 2.11.87, he was regularized only from 22.2.91, after nearly three years from the date of his initial appointment. Since the petitioner was 35 years and three months old at the time of his initial appointment, the second respondent had sent a proposal to the Government to obtain the age relaxation. Based on the said request, the Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.1609, Education Department, dated 29.11.90. The service of the petitioner has been regularized only from the date of the said Government Order and not from the date of his initial appointment. Though the petitioner was appointed along with several other Secondary Grade Teachers, on contract basis, in the time scale of pay, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.510, Education, dated 10.5.89, several teachers in the High Schools, Elementary schools and Middle Schools have been regularized with effect from the date of their initial appointment. Further, several persons appointed along with the petitioner in the High School were promoted as B.T. Assistant. However, the petitioner has been deprived of such benefits. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7882 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.18885 of 2006.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that it would suffice if the period between the initial date of his appointment and the date of regularisation of his service, is counted for calculating the retiral benefits of the petitioner.