Madras High Court
J.Jeevakala vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 22 August, 2023
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
and
W.M.P.No.10962 of 2017
J.Jeevakala .. Petitioner
vs
1.The Director of Elementary Education
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai- 600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Coimbatore.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Vattaram – II, Anaimalai,
Coimbatore District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records of the second respondent in A.Thi.Mu.No.4691/ AA2/ 2013
dated 28.12.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to step up the pay of the petitioner on par with
S.Vasanthi with effect from 29.05.2009 without reference to the
proceedings of the first respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.16907/ E1/
2016 dated 11.08.2016 by taking into account the fact that the
petitioner is only comparing the junior/senior based upon the initial
date of entry into service.
For Petitioner : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Advocate
for Ms.S.Suneetha
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Kumar
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
ORDER
Writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified
mandamus seeking records issued by the second respondent in
A.Thi.Mu.No.4691/ AA2/ 2013 dated 28.12.2013 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to step up the pay of
the petitioner on par with S.Vasanthi with effect from 29.05.2009
without reference to the proceedings of the first respondent herein
in Na.Ka.No.16907/E1/2016 dated 11.08.2016 by taking into
account the fact that the petitioner is only comparing the
junior/senior based upon the initial date of entry into service.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had
been stated by the petitioner that she was appointed as Secondary
Grade Teacher on 15.07.1988. On 23.12.2004, she got promoted to
the post of Elementary School Headmaster and was further
promoted to the post of Tamil Pandit with effect from 27.07.2005.
3. In the affidavit, it is further stated that one S.Vasanthi,
who was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on
15.07.1988 in Pollachi North Panchayat Union was getting more pay
than the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to
VI pay commission, an anomaly in pay was caused. The petitioner
sent a representation to the official respondent on 04.08.2010 for
stepping up of her pay on par with her junior / S.Vasanthi. Along
with the representation, the petitioner had also made a detailed
comparative statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the said proposal was returned vide communication
dated 02.11.2010 stating that since the petitioner and the said
S.Vasanthi were from different unions, the claim made by the
petitioner cannot be considered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment
of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of T.Mani and
others v The District Elementary Educational Officer [W.P.Nos. 3698
to 3700 of 2007 dated 18.06.2012]. Though it is a settled position
of law, this Court also had an occasion to consider a similar set of
facts in W.P.No. 12504 of 2017 and had allowed the writ petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader
for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had been
transferred from one unit to another unit. The respondents had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
compared the grade pay of both the petitioner and S.Vasanthi while
determining the pay matrix. The learned Special Government
Pleader further stated that the official respondents had carefully
gone through the records and had come to the conclusion that there
was no pay anomaly as claimed by the petitioner and sought
dismissal of the petition.
7. Heard learned counsels on either side.
8. As correctly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the ratio laid down in T.Mani
(supra) would directly apply to the facts of this case. In M.Jafur
Ahmed v the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, P &
AR Department in W.P.No.12504 of 2017 dated 21.07.2023, it had
been held as follows:-
“11. The facts have been stated above and
they are not in dispute. The entire issue
surrounds the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.25 P
& AR Department (FRIV Department) dated
23.03.2015. The very object of the Government
Order was to rectify the anomaly with respect
to the promotion from Ordinary Grade to
Selection Grade post and the junior drawing
more pay than the senior. The object can be
stated as follows:-
“Instances have been brought to the notice
of the Government that the pay anomaly due
to Junior drawing more pay than the senior in
cases where the senior got promotion before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
moving to Selection Grade / Special Grade of
the lower post and the junior got promotion
after moving to Selection Grade / Special
Grade in the revised scales of pay as a result
of introduction of Tamil Nadu Revised Scales
of Pay Rules, 2009. The question of rectifying
the anomaly in such cases was carefully
examined by the Government.”
12. It is seen that the Government
Order applies to cases where a senior got
promotion before moving to either Selection
Grade / Special Grade of the lower post and the
junior gets promotion after moving to Selection
Grade / Special Grade.
13. In the instant case, the petitioner
was promoted to Middle School Headmaster
before granting Selection Grade in the earlier
post, namely the Primary School Headmaster.
On the other hand, the junior / Manimegalai
was promoted as Middle School Headmistress
after a getting Selection Grade pay while
working as Primary School Headmistress. This
anomaly is stated to rectified by passing this
G.O.No.25 dated 23.03.2015.
14. In the Government Order, to rectify
this anomaly it had been directed as follows:-
“5. The Government direct that in cases
where Government servants who have been
appointed / promoted to higher posts without
moving to Selection Grade / Special Grade in
the lower post and there by happen to draw
less pay than their junior who are appointed /
promoted to the higher posts after moving to
the Selection Grade / Special Grade of the
lower post, in the revised scales of pay, the
pay of such seniors should be fixed in the
higher post equal to the pay of the Junior in
the higher post with effect from the date of
drawl of higher pay by
The junior in the higher post subject to
fulfilment of the following conditions:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
i. Both the junior and senior officers should
belong to the same cadre and the post in
which they have been promoted or appointed
should be identical and in the same cadre.
ii. The scales of pay of the lower and higher
posts in which they are entitled to draw pay
should be identical.
iii. The pay anomaly should be arising directly
as a result of fixation of pay in the Selection
Grade / Special Grade of the lower post. For
example, if even in the lower post the junior
officer draws from time to time, a higher rate
of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of
advance increment, the provisions contained
in this order should not be invoked to step up
the pay of the senior officer; and
iv. The orders refixing the pay of the senior
officers in accordance with the provisions of
this order should be issued under
Fundamental Rule 27. The next increment of
the senior officer will be drawn on completion
of the requisite qualifying service with effect
from the date of refixation of the pay.”
15. Thus, it is seen that direction had
been given that in cases where there is pay
anamoly, the pay of seniors should be fixed in
the higher post equal to the pay of junior in the
higher post with effect from the date of drawal
of higher pay.
16. This would effectively mean that the
petitioner's pay should be fixed as equal to the
pay of Manimegalai, who had a higher pay
consequent to being promoted after being
granted Selection Grade in the post of Primary
School Headmistress. The first and second
conditions of G.O. No.25 quoted above would
apply to the petitioner herein.
17. Both the senior and the junior
belong to the same cadre. They have been
promoted and appointment was identical and in
the same cadre. They both worked at the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
Department. They both were earlier Primary
School Headmaster / Headmistress and they
were promoted as Middle School
Headmaster/Headmistress. The scales of pay as
Primary School Headmaster and Middle School
Headmaster were the same but consequent to
the fact that Manimegalai was promoted after
being granted Selection Grade has given her a
clear advantage of drawing higher pay. To
equalize that particular aspect this Government
Order has been passed.
18. The contention of the respondents
that both are from different union, would not be
applicable to this case. This is a case of drawing
of pay and equalizing the pay scale to that of
the junior. The transfer from one union to
another union would affect seniority but it
would not be applicable so far as fixation of pay
is concerned. Therefore, the aforementioned
extract of the counter affidavit would not be
directly applicable to the facts of this case.
19. Learned Government Advocate had
raised objections stating that the petitioner had
been transferred from another unit to the
Namakkal Unit. But as stated, this is an issue of
fixation of pay and, therefore, though serious
objections were raised on behalf of the
respondents, it would only be appropriate that
the senior pay is stepped up with junior in
accordance with G.O.No.25. The Government
Order, therefore, prevails.”
9. This Court is of the considered view that the anomaly in
pay had occurred due to the implementation of the
recommendations of the VI Pay Commission and the petitioner is
entitled for stepping up of pay. The contention raised by learned
Special Government Pleader for the respondents that stepping up of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
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 the junior. The transfer from
one union to another union would affect seniority but it would not
be applicable so far as fixation of pay is concerned.
10. 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 but at any rate
pass orders within the period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
22.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai- 600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Coimbatore.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Vattaram – II, Anaimalai,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
ssm
W.P.No.9684 of 2017
22.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
