Teacher On Explicitly Unaided Post Cannot Claim Seventh Pay Commission Pay From Anglo-Indian School: Madras HC

C.R. Kasturi was appointed as a part-time Vocational Instructor in May 1997 and was regularized with effect from 9 April 2009 under G.O.(2D).No.14, subject to a condition that she would receive benefits under the Contributory Pension Scheme.

She sought regularization from her initial appointment and consequential benefits, relying on G.O.Ms.Nos.35 and 525; she had not challenged the 2009 regularization order.

In the connected petition, the School challenged a District Educational Officer’s order directing it to pay Kasturi salary under the Seventh Pay Commission.

Her post had been upgraded as an unaided post, and her 2015 appointment order stated that she was management staff and could not claim Government-service benefits.

The Court heard both petitions together.

The Court relied on the finality of the unchallenged regularization order, which fixed Kasturi’s regularization from 9 April 2009 and subjected her to the Contributory Pension Scheme.

It also applied the Full Bench ruling in Correspondent/Principal v. T. Sorubarani, 2015-5 L.W. 544: staff of unaided schools cannot claim salary parity with Government or aided-school staff, and compelling a minority institution to pay such salaries would impermissibly intrude on its right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

G.O.(3D).No.85 dated 15 June 2012 and the School’s appointment order established the post’s unaided status and the condition that no grant would be claimed.

Although Kasturi relied on Government Orders sanctioning vocational posts and Division Bench decisions granting regularization from initial appointment, the Court distinguished those cases because Kasturi had already been regularized under the 2009 order and had not challenged it; that order had attained finality, so the Court would not treat her initial appointment date as her regularization date.

As to the School’s petition, the post was expressly unaided and Kasturi had been notified of that status in her appointment order. Applying T. Sorubarani, the Court held that the District Educational Officer could not require the School to pay salary and benefits on the Seventh Pay Commission scale.

It allowed W.P.No.25169 of 2024 and quashed the District Educational Officer’s order dated 26 June 2024 directing Seventh Pay Commission salary payments.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.