Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Raya Xavier on 15 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.255 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.04.2021
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
The Hon'ble Mrs.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) No.255 of 2021
and
CMP(MD).No.821 of 2021
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District - 627 006.
4. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District-627 802.
... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4
Vs
Raya Xavier, (Died) ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.255 of 2021
Prayer : Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 24.02.2020, passed in W.P.(MD) No.14950 of 2014.
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
in all Writ Appeals
For Respondent : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan,
in all Writ Appeals
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
This appeal filed by the Education Department is directed against the
order dated 24.02.2020, passed in W.P(MD).No.14950 of 2014.
2. The order impunged in the writ petition is dated 28.06.2013, by
which, the respondent-writ petitioner's request for stepping up his pay on
par with his junior, was declined solely on the ground that the petitioner was
promoted from secondary grade teacher. The reason is not sustainable. The
seniority only commence from the date of joining in the promotional post.
The correctness of such a stand has been tested in several cases and the
learned Writ Court by following the decision in W.P(MD).No.742 of 2018
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.255 of 2021
dated 07.02.2018, allowed the writ petition and aggrieved over the same, the
Department is before us.
3. We have elaborately heard Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned Special
Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, learned
Counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Similar issue came up for hearing before this Court on earlier
occassions and one such decision in W.P(MD).No.742 of 2018 dated
07.02.2018, was followed by the learned Single Bench. Identical issue was
considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD).No.1220 of
2019, which was filed by the Education Department challenging the order
passed in W.P(MD).No.4231 of 2019 and the Department appeal was
dismissed holding that the distinction sought to be drawn by the Department
on the ground that the two teachers are working in two different Panchayat
Union Schools, is not sustainable. Therefore, we find that there is no error
in the order passed in the writ petition.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.255 of 2021
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants-Department would vehemently contend that though the reason
given in the order impugned in the writ petition may not be fully
sustainable, yet the question of stepping up of the pay would not arise, as all
pay anomoly issue consequent upon revision of pay and allowances
pursuant to the recommendations of the pay commissions are governed by
the Tamil Nadu Revised Pay Rules 2017, issued by the Government in
G.O.Ms.No.303, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 11.10.2017.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader has drawn our attention
to the relevant portions of the Government Order and submitted that if the
issue is considered in terms of the guidelines laid down in the Rules, the
question of stepping-up of the pay would not arise. We cannot accept this
submission made by the department at this juncture for more than one
reason. Firstly, the order impugned in the writ petition does not refer to
G.O.Ms.No.303, for declining stepping up of pay. Secondly in the writ
petition, no such argument was advanced by the department and though in
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.255 of 2021
other cases counter affidavits have been filed, this contention was never
raised. Thirdly, G.O.Ms.No.303, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated
11.10.2017, is much after the order impugned in the writ petition.
7. Therefore, based on G.O.Ms.No.303, we cannot interefere in the
order passed in the writ peition. As in our opinion, if according to the
appellants-Department the stepping up cannot be done in terms of the Tamil
Nadu Revised Pay Rules 2017, it gives a separate cause of action and
therefore, the request of the respondents-teachers should be processed in
accordance with the Rules and not for the reasons cited in the impugned
order passed in the writ petition, which has been rightly quashed.
8. Accordingly, while confirming the order passed in the writ petition
quashing the impunged order therein, we give liberty to the appellants-
Department to consider the case of the respondent-teacher based on the
Tamil Nadu Revised Pay Rules 2017, in accordance with law and if so
adviced, by taking into account the relevant Government Orders.
Accordingly, order in the Writ Petition is confirmed.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.255 of 2021
9. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed with the
aforementioned observation and consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
15.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pkn
Note : In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.255 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
pkn
W.A.(MD) No.255 of 2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.255 of 2021
15.04.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
