S. Kumaravel vs The Chief Educational Officer

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner joined as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.03.1968 in the Nemili Panchayat Union School. He

was promoted as Headmaster of Elementary School on 12.08.1968. He acquired qualifications of B.A. as well as B. Ed. He was promoted as

Middle School Headmaster on 03.09.1979. On 07.08.1980, the Middle School was upgraded as High School. On up gradation, he was

absorbed in the same School in the Government service from Panchayat Union service. However, the scale of pay of Middle School Headmaster

and B.T. Assitant were same and therefore he did not have any grievance.

There was a revision in scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1988, pursuant to the recommendations of V. Pay Commission. Pursuant to the pay

revision, the Middle School Headmasters were given higher scale of pay. The Special Commissioner and Secretary, School Education

Department, Chennai issued a letter dated 15.06.1988 stating that the Middle School Headmasters who are absorbed as B.T. Assistant in

Government service, pursuant to the upgradation of the Middle Schools, would be given pay protection.

Based on the said Government letter, the Petitioner was also given scale of pay Middle School Headmaster from 01.06.1988 and he was also

given selection grade pay, taking into account the service as Middle School Headmaster. But, the impugned order was passed by the Respondent

dated 08.05.2000, ordering recovery of pay and also for re-fixation.

According to the Respondent, the Petitioner could not have been granted the scale of Middle School Headmaster from 01.06.1988 and the

Government order dated 15.06.1988 is not applicable to the Petitioner, as the School where, he was employed, got upgraded before 01.06.1988.

In these circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A. No. 5041 of 2000, to quash the aforesaid order dated

08.05.2000 of the Respondent.

On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 45272 of

2006.

The Respondents filed reply affidavit denying the allegations.

Heard Mr. P. Ganesh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. C. Devi, learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.

Admittedly, the impugned order was passed without hearing the Petitioner. It is well settled that no adverse order could be passed by an

authority against any one resulting in civil consequences without hearing the concerned person. In this regard, Para 3 of the judgment of the

Hon''ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others, is extracted here-under:

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. That the Petitioner''s basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed.

There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the Appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f.

18.12.1970. The Appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the

reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the other came to be made behind

his back without following any procedure known to law. There has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the

Appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an

employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the (sic employee) concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the

matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.07.1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be

sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the Appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be

set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.09.1993 as well as the order

(memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.07.1991 reducing the basic pay of the Appellant from Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f.

18.12.1970.

Further, the Petitioner also retired long back. When the Petitioner was given scale of pay of Headmaster in 1988, the same was sought to be

unsettled after 12 years, in the year 2000. There is no reason given for the delay. Furthermore, on merits also, the Respondent is not correct in

stating that the Government letter 15.06.1988, could not be applied to persons who served as Middle School Headmasters in the schools which

were upgraded before 01.06.1988.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. rns