M SELVARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is at present 80 years old. He claims that he was working as Physical Education Director in the 5th respondent College. After completing his service, he got superannuated as early as 30.01.1988. The petitioner sent a representation though his principal to grant pay scale in terms of G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 03.03.208. On receipt of the said representation received from the Principal of the 5th respondent College dated 01.07.2009, the fourth respondent informed the petitioner that since he was not in service as on 01.01.1996, his request to consider for the benefits arising out of G.O.Ms.No.53 Higher Education Department dated 03.03.2008 will not be granted to him.

(2.) The petitioner contends that the date i.e. 01.01.996 indicated in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 03.03.2008 does not mean that it will apply prospectively and that it will also apply to teachers who were in service before 01.01.1996. This court is surprised that such an argument is advanced by the petitioner. G.O.Ms.No.53 came to be issued by the State Government on 03.03.2008 on the basis of the Career Advancement Scheme being extended to Assistant Director of Physical Education and Director of Physical Education in colleges pursuant to the recommendation made by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Accepting the recommendation made by the UGC, the State Government had issued the order. However, in the order itself, it was stated that the revision of pay scales recommended by UGC for teachers working in Government Aided colleges will be available as on 01.01.1996. It is not clear as to how the said Government Order can apply to the petitioner.

(3.) It must be noted that subsequent to the recommendation made by the Mehrotra committee, the UGC recommended Career Advancement Scheme for all college teachers. The said scheme was accepted by the State Government on the basis of Central funding and accordingly, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos.1784,1785 and 1786 Higher Education Department dated 17.12.1988. The petitioner at the time of introduction of the Career Advancement Scheme was not even in the aided college service. Therefore, the question of a Career Advancement Scheme being made applicable to the petitioner does not arise.