Madras High Court

A. Kannan vs The Chief Educational Officer on 17 August, 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.08.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. V. KARTHIKEYAN

W.P.No.19761 of 2019

A. Kannan
.. Petitioner
Vs.

1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.

2.The District Educational Officer,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents

Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to Aa.Thi.Mu.No.819/A1/2019 dated 23.05.2018 and to
quash the same and consequently permit the petitioner to resubmit their
representation dated 12.02.2018 and further issue a direction to the 1st
respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner's representation dated
12.02.2018, in the light of judgment of W.P.No.3698 of 2007 and batch,
within a time frame.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2

For Petitioner .. Mr. P. Murali
For Respondents .. Mr. U. Bharanidharan, AGP

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified

Mandamus seeking records relating to Aa.Thi.Mu.No.819/A1/2018 dated

23.05.2018 and to quash the same and permit the petitioner to represent the

representation dated 12.02.2018 and issue a direction to the 1st respondent to

reconsider the claim of the representation of the petitioner dated 12.02.2018.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on

05.01.1990 in Thandarampattu Block, Panchayat Union Middle School,

Rayandapuram, Thiruvannamalai District. He was then transferred to

Thiruvannamalai Union. He was granted Selection Grade after 10 years. He

was then promoted as Primary School Headmaster on 20.09.2004.

Thereafter, on 27.11.2006 he was promoted as B.T Teacher and then on

12.10.2009 he was promoted as B.T Headmaster in Panchayat Union

Middle School, Kadagam. He was then transferred as Block Educational

Officer at Polur Block, Thiruvannamalai District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. It is claimed that a junior to the petitioner V. Saravanan was

initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 07.12.1990 and as

Primary School Headmaster on 01.09.2005 and promoted as BT Headmaster

in Panchayat Union Middle School, Valayampattu, Thiruvannmalai Block,

who was drawing a higher pay of Rs.9,300-34,800+GP 4700-28040. The

petitioner though senior was drawing the pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800+GP

4700-26410. Seeking to set right the anomaly in the pay, the petitioner had

given a representation on 12.02.2018, the order passed in the said

representation is being impugned in the present writ petition.

4. In the order passed, which is now impugned, it had been stated

that the petitioner and his junior V. Saravanan were functioning in two

different unions and therefore, there cannot be any comparison between two

teachers of two different unions and therefore, the representation was

rejected.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it

had been stated that the pay anomaly had arisen only because the petitioner

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

and his junior had not been promoted from the same cadre. It had been

stated that the Fundamental Rule 22B cannot be invoked to the advantage

of the petitioner herein particularly because, the petitioner and the junior

belonged to two different panchayat unions. It is stated that the disparity in

pay cannot be rectified in such case. Both the petitioner and the junior

working in two different panchayat unions. It is stated that the pay anomaly

had arisen consequent to the fact that the junior had been granted increment

when he completed his B.Ed., and Post Graduate degree, which was

subsequent to the petitioner herein. It was therefore stated that the pay

anomaly could not be rectified and the request of the petitioner cannot be

granted.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The comparative chart between the petitioner and the junior V.

Saravanan had been forwarded by the learned Additional Government

Pleader. It is seen that the petitioner was originally appointed as Secondary

Grade Teacher on 05.01.1990. His Junior was appointed on 07.12.1990. The

petitioner was promoted as Primary School Headmaster on 20.09.2004

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

while the Junior was promoted on 01.09.2005. The petitioner had been

granted increment for completing his B.Ed., on 15.05.2000 on which date,

the basic salary he was drawing was Rs.5,600.75/-. On that particular date,

the basic pay of the junior was Rs.5,125/-. The petitioner then completed his

M.A degree and for that an increment was given on 29.05.2007 and on that

particular date, his basic was Rs.19,250/-. On the same date, the basic of his

junior was Rs.16,870/-. The junior had completed his M.A., B.Ed., and had

been granted increment on 21.06.2016 and by grant of such increment his

scale was increased to Rs.69,500/-, whereas the petitioner scale was

Rs.68,300/-. This was the reason for the difference in pay between the

petitioner and his junior.

8. The petitioner had completed his B.Ed., and his M.A., much

earlier when the basic pay was less and therefore, the increment was also

less. However, the junior completed his B.Ed., and M.A., at later stage. By

that passage of time, the basic pay had increased, leading to increase in

both the incentive and increment granted for completion of M.A., B.Ed.

That has been the basic reason for pay anomaly.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9. With respect to the contention of the respondents that the

petitioner and his junior were working in different unions, that would be an

issue with respect to seniority, but the pay of the petitioner should be

protected and should not be lesser than that of the junior.

10. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner had

forwarded a judgment with respect to similar issue, which had come up for

consideration before me in W.P.No.2672 of 2019, K. Malathi Vs. The

District Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai District and others dated

21.07.2023, it had been held as follows:

“8. This Court is of the considered view that the anomaly in pay had occurred due to the implementation of the recommendations of the VII pay commission and the petitioner is entitled for stepping up of pay. The contention raised by learned Government Advocate for the respondents that stepping up of pay will not be applicable to those who were transferred from one unit to another unit is rejected since this is a case of drawing of pay and equalizing the pay scale to that of her junior. The transfer from one union to another union would affect seniority but

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

it would not be applicable so far as fixation of pay is concerned.

9. The writ petition stands allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to issue necessary proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondents require any clarification, they may issue notice to the petitioner herein and seek necessary clarification and but at any rate pass orders within the period of four months. No costs.

Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

11. In view of the observations above, the same ratio applies and

the impugned order is set aside. The petition may resubmit his

representation dated 12.02.2018 within a period of two weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents may issue necessary

proceedings within a period of six further weeks. If they require any

clarification, they may issue notice to the petitioner, but at any rate, orders

should be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the

representation from the petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

12. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands allowed.

No costs.