Madras High Court
The District Educational Officer vs B.Chenni Veerappa on 17 August, 2022
W.A.No.1578 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.1578 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.10447 of 2022
1.The District Educational Officer,
Denkanikottai,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
Kelamangalam Union,
Krishnagiri District. ..Appellants
Vs
B.Chenni Veerappa ..Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 03.12.2021 made in W.P.No.12125 of 2020.
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Ms.DakshayaniReddy
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1578 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Paresh Upadhyay.,J)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 03.12.2021
recorded on W.P.No. 12125 of 2020. This appeal is by the respondent
/ State Authorities.
2. Learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that,
reddressal of the grievance of the writ petitioner regarding pay
anamoly, in the facts of this case, was not contemplated in view of
the policy of the Government. It is submitted that the direction given
by learned Single Judge is thus against the policy of the State and
therefore this appeal be entertained. It is further submitted that, the
appointment of the writ petitioner and the person with whom the
parity is sought was not in the same division and that is an additional
ground why the relief asked for by the writ petitioner should not be
granted. It is submitted that, this appeal be entertained.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the contesting
respondent / original writ petitioner has submitted true it is that, the
appointment of the writ petitioner and the person with whom the
parity sought were in different divisions, however only because the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1578 of 2022
person was transferred from different division to the division in which
the writ petitioner was working is not the factor why the pay anamoly
had arisen. It is submitted that, as a matter of fact, when she was
transferred to the division in which the writ petitioner was working,
that person was getting the pay not more than the writ petitioner and
therefore that argument is not available to the State and the
interference by learned Single Judge can not be said to be an error. It
is submitted that, this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as
under:-
4.1 The writ petitioner was appointed on 07.10.1996. The
date of appointment of the person with whom the comparison made is
13.08.1997. The person who was appointed in the year 1997 was
transferred to the division in which the writ petitioner was serving on
01.03.1999. It is not in dispute that even at that time she (the person
who was transferred) was not getting more pay than the writ
petitioner. It is in this factual background, the claim of the writ
petitioner needs to be examined.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1578 of 2022
4.2 The writ petitioner had passed the higher qualification
examination in the year 1996. He was given incentive increment at
the relevant time. The person who was appointed in the year 1999,
passed that examination in the year 2012. It is in the year 2012, that
incentive increment was given to that person. From that stage, pay
anomaly cropped-up.
4.3 In this factual background, we find that, the pay anomaly
is not attributable to any merit or de-merit on the part of either the
writ petitioner or to the person with whom the comparison is made. It
is on the basis of the incentive increment after general revision of pay
in the year 2006. It is this pay anomaly, which needs to be redressed
by stepping-up of pay of the writ petitioner which the State ought to
have granted. Denial of this stepping-up of pay on the ground that the
person with whom the comparison is sought was transferred from one
division to another in the year 1999 is no ground to justify the said
denial. We find that, grant of relief, in this factual background by
learned Single Judge, can not be said to be an error, much less any
error apparent on the face of record. This appeal therefore needs to
be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1578 of 2022
5. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition would not survive.
(P.U., J.) (V.B.S., J.)
17.08.2022
Index:No
ssm/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1578 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.,J
ssm
W.A.No.1578 of 2022
17.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
