M. Karuppasamy vs The Director of Collegiate Education and Others

D. Hari Paranthaman, J.—Since the matter lies in narrow compass, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

Heard both sides.

The petitioner joined service as Sweeper in the third respondent College on 18.09.1982. Subsequently, he was promoted as Library Assistant. Thereafter, he was further promoted as Lab Assistant on 01.05.2000. On completion of 10 years of service as Lab Assistant, he is entitled to Selection Grade i.e. he is entitled to Selection Grade in the post of Lab Assistant from 01.05.2000. While so, on 01.04.2010, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant.

In these circumstances, the petitioner made a representation on 26.04.2010 giving option to fix the salary of Junior Assistant with effect from 02.05.2010, after granting him selection grade in the post of Lab Assistant. The third respondent College recorded the aforesaid option in the Service Register of the petitioner and also sent proposals for awarding selection grade on completion of 10 years of service in the post of Lab Assistant and further for fixing his salary in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 02.05.2010. But, the second respondent simply approved the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant in his proceedings dated 20.12.2010.

In these circumstances, the third respondent again sent proposal for awarding selection grade to the petitioner for the post of Lab Assistant. The same was returned by the second respondent. Repeatedly proposals were resubmitted and the same were returned by the second respondent.

The only reason cited by the second respondent is that the petitioner should have opted to fix the pay in the post of Junior Assistant after granting of selection grade within a period of 30 days from the date of promotion and the petitioner die not exercise the option within the said period.

In my view, the said reasoning cannot stand scrutiny. The records produced before this Court make it very clear that the petitioner sent a letter dated 26.04.2010, to grant him selection grade pay for the post of Lab Assistant and thereafter to fix him in the Junior Assistant scale from 02.05.2010. The petitioner was promoted only on 01.04.2010 to the post of Junior Assistant.

In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner exercised option within a period of 30 days from the date of promotion as to his fixation for the post of promoted post. Furthermore, it is also useful to take note of the Government letter dated 11.01.2010 stating that the Government Servants, who have been promoted/appointed to a higher post between 01.04.2003 and 31.07.2006 are permitted to seek option for fixation of pay under Proviso VIII under FR.22-B, within a period of three months from the date of issuance of that letter. In short, the Government always took a lenient view in these type of cases.

In such a situation, I had an occasion to consider a matter and directed appropriate fixation by permitting the concerned Government employee to exercise his option in the order dated 08.04.2013 in W.P. No. 2248 of 2012 in Valliammal v. The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Palayamkottai Nagar, Tirunelveli. It is useful to extract Paras 13 to 16 in this regard.

"13. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on consolidated pay on 08.12.1990 and her services was regularised on 01.09.1992. Thereafter, she was granted Selection Grade on completion of ten years of service in the year 2002. She was promoted on 23.05.2009 as B.T. Assistant. Similarly situated Teachers like the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 221 of 1991 seeking regularization from the date of appointment. The petitioner is not admittedly party to the above writ petition. The Writ petition was allowed. Later, writ appeal Nos. 1585 to 1624 of 2001 were filed against the order passed in W.P.(MD) No. 221 of 1991. The Writ Appeals was dismissed on 11.04.2008. The Government implemented the order of this Court by issuing the G.O. Ms. No. 336 School Education Department, dated 30.12.2009 granting benefits to all the persons. The benefit of the said Government Order was given to the petitioner only on 12.03.2011. Accordingly, this petitioner made a request on 21.03.2011. But, the impugned order states that the petitioner should have applied for re-fixation within three months of issuance of the Government Order. The impugned order dated 06.04.2011 of the respondent is extracted hereunder:

As stated above, the aforesaid facts make it clear that the respondent should not expect the petitioner to make an application within three months from the date of issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 336 School Education Department, dated 30.12.2009. The petitioner is not admittedly a party to the W.P. No. 221 of 1991. Hence, she cannot be expected to exercise option within three months from the date of the G.O, under the proviso VIII or FR.22-B.

In similar circumstances, the Government have issued a letter dated 11.01.2010. The said letter is relevant in this regard. In the said letter dated 11.01.2010, it is stated that in G.O. Ms. No. 71 Finance (Pension) Department dated 19.03.2003, the maximum qualifying service was enhanced to 33 years to become eligible for full pension. The said Government Order was made applicable to the Government Servants, who retire from service on or after 01.04.2003. In G.O.ms.496, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 01.08.2006 the maximum qualifying service was reduced from 33 years to 30 years to become eligible for full pension. This order was made applicable to Government employees, who retire from service on or after 31.07.2007. The pension shall be determined based on last ten months pay of the employee.

In these circumstances, the Government issued the aforesaid letter dated 11.01.2010 stating that the Government Servants, who have promoted/appointed to a higher post between 01.04.2003 and 31.07.2006, are permitted to seek option for fixation of pay under Proviso VIII under FR.22-B, within a period of three months from the date of issuance of that letter. I am of the view that similar direction shall be given to the petitioner also."

For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 09.12.2014 returning the proposal relating to fixation of pay of petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 02.05.2010 after granting selection grade pay for the post of Lab Assistant is quashed and the third respondent College is directed to resubmit the proposal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on resubmitting of proposal, the second respondent is directed to approve the same thereby granting selection grade to the petitioner in the post of Lab Assistant and thereafter, to fix his pay in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 02.05.2010, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

The writ petition is disposed of with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 is closed.