R. DURAISWAMY AND ORS.versusDIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND ORS.

                  R. DURAISWAMY AND ORS.                                          A
                             v.
           DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND ORS.

                           DECEMBER 12, 2000

         [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]                            B


     Service law :

      Disparity in pay-Teachers absorbed in High School service and
teachers promoted as Head Masters in Primary/Middle Schools-Held, they            C
constitute different cadres of service and therefore no disparity.

       Petitioners, who were initially appointed as teachers in Panchayat Union
Elementary Schools, were working in Middle Schools. The Middle Schools
were upgraded as High Schools and the petitioners were transferred and            D
absorbed in the High School service. Teachers, who were junior to the
petitioners and continued in the Elementary Schools, were promoted as Head
Masters in the Primary and Middle Schools and getting more pay than the
petitioners. The Petitioners approached the State Administrative Tribunal for
fixation of pay on par with the Head Masters in the Elementary Schools. The
Tribunal , initially relying upon certain Government orders, held that the        E
teachers of the Elementary and Middle Schools and the teachers of the High
Schools constituted one service and granted relief. Subsequently, on review,
the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioners.

      In these Special Leav~ Petitions, the petitioners contended that they
would have become Head l\.'1asters in the Primary/Middle Schools on the basis     F
of their seniority if they continued their service in the Elementary Schools,
and entitled to draw higher scales.

      Dismissing the appeals, the Court

      HELD: I. The claim of the petitioners is unfounded. If aggrieved, they      G
should have chosen to get back to their parent schools and derived benefits,
which were given to those who continued in the Panchayat Union Elementary
Schools. On absorption in the High Schools, the petitioners ceased to be a
part of the cadre of teachers serving in schools run by the Panchayat Union.
The protection granted by the Government on which the Tribunal had earlier        H
                                     565
     566                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A placed reliance was only in relation to pay and awarding of selection or special
     grade and that would not constitute one single cadre. [567-C]

           Director o/School Eduction & Anr. v. A.N. Kandaswamy & Anr., (1998)
    5 SCALE 699, relied on.

B          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :

           Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 11650-52of1997.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 27.1.97 of the Tamil Nadu
    Administrative Tribunal, Madras in R.A. Nos. 51-53of1995 in O.A. Nos. 4698
C   to 4692 of 1994.

           T. Raja for the Petitioners.

         R. Mohan, Sr. Adv., M.A. Chinnasamy and A. Mariaputham, for
    Arputham and Aruna & Co. for the Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.

D          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           RAJENDRA BABU, J. The Petitioners before us were appointed as
    teachers in the Panchayat Union Elementary Schools under the Tamil Nadu
    Elementary Education Subordinate Service. When they were working in such
    Middle Schools, they were upgraded as High Schools and the Petitioners
E   were transferred to the High Schools. The Petitioners were absorbed in the
    High School Service but some of the teachers, who were stated to be junior
    to the Petitioners and who continued in the Panchayat Union Elementary
    Schools, were subsequently promoted as Head Masters in the primary and
    the Middle Schools run by the Panchayat Union. They were allowed to draw
F   their pay in the scale of Rs. 2,000- 3,200 from 1.6.88 pursuant to G.0. issued
    on 5.10.1990. The result was that they started getting more pay than the
    Petitioners did.

         In those circumstances the Petitioners and others approached the Tamil
  Nadu Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] for
  fixation of their pay on par with the Head Masters in the Panchayat Union
G schools. They contended that, apart from the unfairness of being paid lesser
  salary, had they continued in the Panchayat Union schools, they would have
  become Head Masters in the Primary/Middle Schools on the basis of their
  seniority and thus would have been entitled to draw such higher scales. The
  Tribunal relied upon certain Government orders and held that the teachers of
H the elementar; and Middle Schools and the teachers of the High Schools
     R. DURAISWAMY v. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (RAJENDRA HABU. J.J        567
!   constituted one service and, therefore, granted relief to them in some of the    A
J
    applications filed before it. But in subsequent applications filed before the
    Tribunal, the matter was reviewed and the cases of the Petitioners were
    distinguished and their claim has been rejected. It is against this order that
    the Petitioners have now come before this Court.

         It is clear from the narration made above that the Petitioners had been     B
    working in the High Schools on the upgradation of the Middle Schools to
    High Schools. If they were really aggrieved. they should have chosen to get
    back to their parent schools and should have derived the benefits as were
    being given to those who continued in the Panchayat Unions School. On
    their absorption in the High Schools, they ceased to be apart of the cadre of    C
    teachers serving in schools run by the Panchayat Union. The protection
    granted by the Government on which the Tribunal had earlier placed reliance
    was only in relation to pay and awarding of selection or special grade and
    that would not constitute one single cadre. Therefore, the claim made by the
    Petitioners is unfounded.
                                                                                     D
          Identical question was also considered by this Court in Director of
    School Education & Anr. v. A.N. Kandaswamy & Anr., (I 998) 5 SCALE 699
    and following the said decision, for the reasons stated therein, we find no
    merit in these petitions and the same stand dismissed. No costs.

    B.S.                                                     Petitions dismissed.    E