Teachers appointed on consolidated pay cannot claim retrospective regularisation or seniority beyond the Government’s prescribed effective date.

The respondents were initially appointed as teachers on consolidated pay on a contractual basis.

By G.O.Ms.No.99, School Education Department, dated 27 June 2006, the Government granted them regular time-scale pay with effect from 1 June 2006, subject to the terms of the Government Order.

The respondents nevertheless sought retrospective regularisation and seniority from their initial dates of appointment, along with consequential monetary and service benefits.

The Single Judge allowed their writ petition, relying on an earlier Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.3904 of 2019.

Subsequently, the earlier judgment relied upon by the Single Judge was recalled in review, and connected writ appeals filed by the Government were allowed.

Whether the respondents were entitled to retrospective regularisation, seniority, and consequential service benefits from their initial appointment dates, despite G.O.Ms.No.99 granting regular time-scale pay only from 1 June 2006?

Whether the Single Judge could grant such relief by relying on the subsequently recalled judgment in W.A.No.3904 of 2019?

Whether the respondents’ delayed challenge to the applicable Government Orders disentitled them from seeking retrospective service benefits?

The Court applied the terms of G.O.Ms.No.99, School Education Department, dated 27 June 2006, under which teachers appointed on consolidated pay were entitled to regular time-scale pay only with effect from 1 June 2006, and held that service benefits could not be granted beyond the Government’s unchallenged policy decision.

The Court relied on the principles that delay and laches may defeat relief under Article 226 and that similarly situated persons cannot automatically claim the benefit of a judgment obtained by others after substantial delay, as stated in S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479.

It also relied on Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K, (2009) 15 SCC 321, which recognises that the writ remedy is discretionary and may be refused on grounds of delay and laches, having regard to its consequences.

Further, an order that has been recalled in review cannot form the basis for granting relief.

The respondents had accepted the benefit and terms of G.O.Ms.No.99, under which regular time-scale pay was granted from 1 June 2006, but did not establish any legal basis for retrospective regularisation or seniority from their initial contractual appointments.

Since the Government Order remained unchallenged, the Court held that the respondents could not obtain service benefits inconsistent with it through a writ of mandamus.

The Single Judge’s reliance on W.A.No.3904 of 2019 was no longer sustainable because that judgment had subsequently been recalled in review; the connected writ petitions and appeals had consequently been dismissed or allowed in favour of the State.

The respondents’ delayed claim also attracted the doctrine of laches, particularly because granting retrospective seniority could adversely affect the accrued rights and promotion prospects of other teachers.

The writ order dated 10 February 2020 in W.P.No.2221 of 2020 was set aside, the writ appeal was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.