Madras High Court
Director Of Elementary Education vs C.Lakshmanan on 19 August, 2021
W.A.No.1382 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.08.2021
CORAM
The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN
W.A.No.1382 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.8599 of 2021
1.Director of Elementary Education,
Chennai -6.
2.District elementary Educational Officer,
Salem, Salem Distrcit. ... Appellants
vs
C.Lakshmanan ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against
the final order dated 03.04.2019, made in W.P. No.10424 of 2006.
****
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan
State Government Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan
for M/s.C.S.Associates
****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.1 of 6
W.A.No.1382 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(delivered by Pushpa Sathyanarayana,J., )
This intra-Court appeal is filed against the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 10424 of 2006 dated 03.04.2019.
2.The writ petitioner is a Teacher who acquired B.A.(Economics) and
B.Ed qualification and he was appointed as BT Assistant on 08.12.1972 at
Panchayat Union, Middle School, Saminaickenpatty, Omalur Taluk, Salem
District. Thereafter, he acquired M.A. degree in the year 1987 and M.Ed.
degree in the year 1989, for which, he was granted two sets of incentive
increments. After that, on 14.07.1995, the School was taken over by the
Education Department and the writ petitioner was posted as Additional
Assistant Elementary Officer on 14.07.1995 at Kadayampatti Union, Salem
District. He also served in various Unions and retired on 30.04.2003 and
continued under extension of service until 31.05.2003. While so, one of
his juniors viz., G.Subramaniyam, who joined service in the year 1975 with
equal qualification as that of the writ petitioner, was sanctioned incentive
increments as per the Sixth Pay Commission, whereas, the writ petitioner
was sanctioned incentive increments as per the Fourth and Fifth pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1382 of 2021
commissions. As a result, his junior was drawing higher scale than the writ
petitioner. Therefore, on 17.06.2004, the writ petitioner made a
representation to step up his pay on par with that of his junior, to the
appellants and the same was rejected on 01.03.2005 based on the
proceedings of the second appellant dated 25.11.2004, stating that the writ
petitioner and the said junior worked in different unions on transfer.
Therefore, there is no provision for stepping up of writ petitioner's pay on
par with his junior. Hence, the respondent has filed the writ petition.
3.The Writ Court, upon hearing both the parties, allowed the writ
petition. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single
Judge reads as follows:
“9.It is evident that the TN Revised Scale of Pay
Rules was introduced in order to redress issues relating
to disparity in pay as between seniors and juniors on
account of the application of revised scales of pay at
different points of time. Moreover, G.O.Ms.No.320
dated 02.04.1990, which was issued to redress pay
anomalies, has directed that the refixation of the pay of
seniors shall be done by the appointing authorities so
as to ensure parity between seniors and juniors who
acquire higher qualifications subsequently. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1382 of 2021
counsel for the Respondents referred to the
proceedings of the First Respondent dated 11.08.2016
to justify the refusal to apply the TN Revised Scale of
Pay Rules to persons appointed in different unions or
units. This contention is untenable because the accrued
and vested rights of the Petitioner under the TN
Revised Scale of Pay Rules cannot be divested by the
aforesaid proceedings dated 11.08.2016, which were
issued much later. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in BIBI SAYEEDA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR,
(1996) 9 SCC 516, at paragraph 17, vested rights are
settled and complete rights and cannot be divested
through subsequent proceedings or actions. In this
regard, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for
the Petitioner are also applicable. Accordingly, the
Impugned Order dated 25.11.2004 of the First
Respondent is liable to be quashed. As a consequence,
the Petitioner is entitled to a step up in the scale of pay
on a par with that of his junior G.Subramaniyam along
with all consequential benefits.”
4.The learned State Government Counsel has also pointed out that
both the writ petitioner and his junior are equally qualified and thus, the
writ petitioner is also entitled for equal scale of pay on par with his junior.
This issue has already been dealt with by this Court and stepping up has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1382 of 2021
already been ordered. Therefore, there is no reason for interfering with the
order of the learned Single Judge, who has rightly arrived at the conclusion
based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BIBI
SAYEEDA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 516.
5.In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [A.A.N., J.]
19.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
rst
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1382 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
rst
W.A.No.1382 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.8599 of 2021
19.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
