w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Somasundaram v/s The Secretary to Government Education Department & Another

    W.P.No.2742 of 2007, (O.A.No.5707 of 2001)

    Decided On, 06 February 2012

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

    For the Petitioner: V. Chandrasekaran, Advocate. For the Respondents: R. Ravichandran, AGP.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in O.Mu.No.48975/C36/2000, dated 20.4.2001 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to grant the consequential benefits based on the proceedings of the second respondent in RC.No.28643/C4/83, dated 26.03.1984.)

1. The petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order O.Mu.No.48975/C36/2000 dated 20.04.2001, declining the request of the petitioner for grant of pay scale of Head Master. The petitioner also prays for consequential writ in the nature of Mandamus for consequential relief, flowing from the order dated 26.03.1984.

2. The petitioner retired from the post of Head Master on attaining the age of superannuation. It is the submission of the petitioner that while promoting the petitioner to the post of Head Master on 16.08.1983, his pay was ordered to be fixed under fundamental rule 22(b).

3. The case set up by the petitioner, is that till the date of retirement, his salary was not enhanced and he continued in the pay scale in which he was working prior to his promotion as Head Master. The petitioner filed a number of representations during service and continued to do so even after retirement, but no action was taken on representations filed by the petitioner.

4. Long after retirement of the petitioner in 1994, that the Directorate of School Education, Chennai, passed an impugned order dated 20.04.2001 to reject the representation filed by the petitioner for grant of pay scale of Head Master in terms of G.O.Ms.No.895, P & AR, dated 10.09.1986, on the ground that it was not applicable to the petitioner, as the instructions were to be applied prospectively. It is also stated in the impugned order that since the petitioner retired prior to issuance of Government Order, he was not entitled to benefit under the said order.

5. The other submission of the petitioner is that his salary was ordered to be fixed under the Fundamental Rule 22(b) and it is therefore not open to the respondents to deny this benefit to the petitioner.

6. In support of this submission, the petitioner has not placed on record any material, that the benefit under the order of promotion was not released to him, rather the plea raised in the writ petition is that he was entitled to fixation of salary by granting one notional increment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.895, P & AR, dated 10.09.1986.

7. The pleadings in the writ petition are that the pay of the petitioner was required to be fixed under the Fundamental Rule 22(b), but as already observed above, there is no factual averments or material on record, showing that the order of promotion was not implemented in letter and spirit nor any explanation is forthcoming as to why the petitioner chose to wait till the order 2001 to approach this Court to redress his grievance. It is well settled law that mere filing of representations having no statutory force of law, cannot extend the period of limitation, nor the impugned order can give fresh cause of action to the petitioner to challenge fixation of pay as back as in the year 1983, i.e the date of his promotion as Head Master.

8. The representation of the petitioner, which stands rejected vide impugned order, was to grant benefit under G.O.Ms.No.895, P & AR, dated 10.09.1986.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner having been promoted was entitled to fixation of pay in terms of the Government Order dated 10.09.1986, therefore, the authorities erred in law, in rejecting the representation.

10. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is well settled law that the instructions of the Government can have only for prospective effect, unless it is specifically made retrospectively in exercise of legislative power. Nothing has been pointed out in G.O.Ms.No.895, P & AR, dated 10.09.1986, that it was to be applied retrospectively.

11. The impugned order passed, being in consonance with the well settled principles of law, does not call for any interference by this Court.

12. It may also be noticed here that the writ petition is highly belated, the order dated 20.04.2001 was passed on non statutory representation and seems to be an attempt to give cause of action to petitioner to raise claim, after 18 years of promo

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

tion of fixing of salary. 13. Vide the impugned order, the representation of the petitioner, claiming benefit of G.O.Ms.No.895, P & AR, dated 10.09.1986 has been rejected on valid and good reason and the other prayer of the petitioner for refixation of his salary from the order 1983, cannot be gone into at this belated stage after lapse of more than 17 years. 14. The writ petition is not only without merit, but also suffers from delay and laches. 15. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.
O R