Madras High Court
Hlda Vijayakumari vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 19 September, 2023
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P. No. 16013 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No.19924 of 2020
Hlda Vijayakumari Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Annagramam Union,
Cuddalore District. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the
records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.8018/A5/2019 dated
27.02.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
step up the pay of petitioner on par with the junior Mr.Mark from the date
when anomaly arose and with all monetary benefits and accordingly revise
the petitioner's pension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 23
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
For petitioner : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Counsel
for Ms.Suneetha
For respondents : Ms.C.Meera Arumugam
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the second
respondent in Na.Ka.No.8018/A5/2019 dated 27.02.2020 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to step up the pay of
petitioner on par with the junior Mr.Mark from the date when anomaly
arose and with all monetary benefits and accordingly revise the petitioner's
pension.
2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was originally appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher
with effect from 01.10.1986 to Annagaram Panchayat Union and even at
the time of appointment the petitioner was qualified with M.A. M.Ed., and
hence she was granted two incentive increments. Subsequently with effect
from 20.09.2004, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Elementary
School Headmaster and was placed in the scale of 5300-150-800-8300 and
the petitioner was placed in the selection grade in the post of elementary
school headmaster with effect from 01.10.2006 and was placed in the pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
scale of 6500-200-10500 and her salary was fixed as Rs.7500-100 personal
pay. Subsequently the petitioner was promoted to the post of BT Assistant
with effect from 05.11.2007 and was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-
10500 and granted with pay of Rs.7900 plus 100 personal pay.
3. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner
was promoted to the post of Middle School Headmaster with effect from
02.06.2010 and retired at the age of superannuation with effect from
31.10.2017 after revision of pay in the year 2017 and her last drawn salary
was Rs.80,000/-. It is further stated that one A.Mark was appointed as
Secondary Grade teacher with effect from 25.11.1987 in Thiruonam
Panchayat Union in Thanjavur District and was transferred to Annagramam
Panchayat Union with effect from 10.11.1989 and the said individual was
originally appointed on consolidated pay on contractual employment and
the services were regularised only with effect from 01.06.1988. When
compared to the petitioner the said Mark was appointed much later than the
petitioner on contractual appointment in the year 1987 and was regularly
appointed only with effect from 01.06.1988 and the said Mark is junior to
the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Elementary School
Head Master on 20.12.2005 much later than the petitioner who was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
promoted on 20.09.2004 and he was drawing less pay than the petitioner.
The said Mark was promoted to the post of BT Assistant with effect from
02.11.2009 and was granted 2 incentive increments for higher qualification.
The said Mark was promoted to the post of School Head Master on
19.08.2015 much later than the petitioner who was promoted on
02.06.2010. When the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2017 the said
Mark was drawing a pay of Rs.84,900/- whereas the petitioner was drawing
a pay of Rs.80,000/-. The said anomaly arose only due to the fact that the
said Mark was granted with two increments in the promotion post whereas
the petitioner was granted with incentive increment in the original post of
Secondary Grade Teacher and all along the petitioner was alone drawing a
higher pay scale than the said Mark. Therefore, the petitioner had given her
representation to the respondent to step up her pay on par with her junior,
since no reply was forthcoming, the petitioner was constrained to file the
writ petition in W.P.No.30180 of 2019 and by order dated 22.10.2019, this
Court directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner
but the respondent mechanically rejected the representation of the petitioner
on the sole ground that the petitioner's junior was originally appointed in
some other Panchayat Union and subsequently appointed in the petitioner's
Union and hence junior - senior comparison cannot be drawn as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
proceedings of the 1st respondent herein dated 11.08.2016.
4. In support of her above contention, the learned senior counsel
relied upon the following decisions of this Court in the cases of:
i) The Block Educational Officer, Kalasappakkam,
Thiruvannamalai District and others Vs A.Chella Perumal wherein
Division Bench of this Court, in Para 2 and 3 held thus:-
2. Ms.S.Mythreye Chandru, learned Special
Government Pleader, has submitted that the writ petitioner
could not have been granted stepping up of his pay
vis~a~vis the person with whom the comparison was made
since that person was transferred from a different Unit to
the present Unit and therefore no comparison could have
been made. It is submitted that the direction by learned
single Judge in favour of the writ petitioner to step up his
pay vis~a~vis the said junior person is against the policy of
the State and therefore this appeal be entertained.
3. Ms.Dakshyani Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that, this Court has considered the
identical issue in W.A.No.1425 of 2022 and confirmed the
similar order passed by learned single Judge.
ii) K. Vijayarani Vs The Director of Elementary Education, DPI
Complex, Chennai and others wherein this Court, in Para 4 to 9 held
thus:-
"4. The respondents in their counter affidavit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
have stated that in the clarification dated 11.08.2016
issued by the first respondent herein, the provision for
fixation of pay of the senior teacher on par with the
junior teacher, can be made only in respect of those
appointed in the same Union and continued work in the
same Union, since the unit of establishment is the
particular Union concerned. In the same clarification,
it was further stated that there is no provision for the
fixation of pay of teachers who are transferred from
one Union to another Union for comparing the pay of
the teacher who was appointed in that particular unit
and continued therein. Such a reasoning for declaring
the petitioner's stepped up pay om par with the junior,
cannot be sustained, in view of the various decisions of
this Court which has held this objection as
unjustifiable.
5. In the order passed by this Court in
W.O.(M.D.) No.24551 of 2018 dated 19.02.2019, the
learned Single Judge had held that even after the
transfer of the Teacher to a new Division and placing
the Teacher at the bottom of the seniority list, the fact
remains that the junior had entered a new division at a
later point of time and therefore cannot be permitted to
take a march over the senior teacher. The decision of
the learned Single Judge came to be followed by
another Single Judge in the case of S.Premavathi Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
Director of School Education and 2 others passed in
W.P.No.34455 of 2019 and the proposition was
reiterated by following the decision in W.P.(MD)
No.24551 of 2018. The relevant portions of the order
read thus:
..... “ 7.It is seen from records that the petitioner
joined at Ammapettai on 31.01.1991 and Prabhu
Sabastian had joined the services only on
04.10.1996.Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to
Oothukuli Block and even there, she had joined on
18.11.1991 and her present block on 02.03.1994 but
Prabhu Sabestian had joined only on 04.10.1996 in
Kangeyam. This is clearly borne out by records.
8. It is therefore clear from the above that both in
terms of joining service and in terms of being
transferred into a different block, the petitioner is
senior to the said Prabhu Sabestian.
9.It will be relevant to refer the judgment of this
Court in WP (MD).No.24551 of 2018 dated 19.02.2019.
The relevant portions of the judgment is extracted
hereunder:
5.Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
relied on the judgment passed by this Court in
W.P(MD).No.742 of 2018 dated07.02.2018 in the case
of K.Vijayarani Vs. The District Elementary
Educational Officer, Thoothukudi and another,
wherein at paragraph No.5, it has been held as follows:
5.The first respondent has proceeded on the
footing that since the petitioner got transferred from
Pudukkottai to Kayathar Union, it is not possible to
set right the pay anomaly. The reason assigned by the
first respondent in the impugned order is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
unsustainable in law. Even though the writ petitioner
came to Kayathar Union by way of transfer and has
to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list, the fact
remains that the Shanthi got appointment as
Secondary Grade Teacher at Kayatharu Union only
later in point of time. Therefore, by no stretch of
imagination the said Shanthi could have stolen march
over the petitioner. The order impugned in this writ
petition is quashed. The respondents are directed to
set right the pay anomaly and step~up the pay of the
petitioner on par with said Shanthi. Such an order
shall be issued by the respondents within a period of
eight weeks.
6.The second respondent had filed a Counter
affidavit, wherein it has been stated as follows:
11. It is to be noted that B.Anuradha (Panchayat
Union Area, S.Pudhur)was appointed in the very same
.PudhurUnion, ie., on 27.07.1999 and got transferred
to the same Thirupathur Union on 01.11.2000. These
two panchayat Union areas are same distinct and that
the Teaches appointed in the same Union area,
compared for fixation of pay with his junior, who came
from one Unit to another Unit, cannot be done.
12. So even basically, the question of comparison
cannot be entertained and her request cannot be
entertained and his request cannot be considered even
at the initial stage. So, the prayer of the petitioner can
be set aside even at the primary stage.
7.Following the decisions as mentioned above, this
Court had, in WP(MD)No.8046 of 2018, also passed
an order in the following terms:-
“ 9.Therefore, it became obvious that the petitioner all
along from the date of selection and appointment has
been senior and has been marching ahead of the said
Ms.R.Vijayalakshmi. Therefore, the pay disparity if
anything found between the petitioner and the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
party, who is admittedly junior to the petitioner, the
same shall be set right by the respondent and the
anomaly must be redressed. In this regard, the only
reason cited by the second respondent in the impugned
order is that if both the petitioner and the third~party,
who is junior to the petitioner, are appointed in the
same Panchayat Union, then only the pay disparity
can be redressed and as a result pay can be stepped up
to the senior person. These reasons cannot be
accepted as the seniority will not get changed, unless,
the person gives up such right of seniority, if he is
transferred from one Union to other Union by losing
the right of seniority. It was in the case on hand, the
petitioner all along has been senior and thereafter,
would have been available to the respondents for
promotion. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue is no
more res integra, as the learned single Judge of this
Court in the case of Vijayarani, cited supra, had an
occasion to consider the similar issue and
ultimately,the learned Single Judge has given
findings, which reads thus:
“.....5.The first respondent has proceeded on the
footing that since the petitioner got transferred from
Pudukottai toKayathar Union, it is not possible to set
right the pay anomaly. The reason assigned by the first
respondent in the impugned order is unsustainable in
law. Even though the writ petitioner came to Kayathar
Union by way of transfer and has to be placed at the
bottom of the seniority list, the fact remains that the
Shanthi got appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher
at Kayatharu Union only later in point of time.
Therefore,by no stretch of imagination the said
Shanthi could have stolen march over the petitioner.
The order impugned in this writ petition is quashed.
The respondents are directed to set right the pay
anomaly and step~up the pay of the petitioner on par
with said Shanthi. Such an order shall be issued by the
respondents within a period of eight weeks.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
6.This Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
10.In view of the legal position and factual matrix of
this case, I am of the considered view that the
petitioner shall be entitled to seek pay parity on par
with his junior, namely, one,Ms.R.Vijayalakshmi, who
according to the petitioner gets a higher pay, who is
junior to the petitioner all along. Therefore,the said
grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed and his
pay shall be stepped up on par with his junior.
8.In view of the above said orders, it is clear that the
issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the
number of decisions, as the reason given in the
impugned order was no more being a valid one and
therefore,on that ground, this impugned order is liable
to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
10.The above judgment was also subsequently followed
in WP(MD).No.6358 of 2019 dated 25.04.2019.
11.It is clear from the above judgments that even after
the transfer of the teacher to the new division and
placing the teacher at the bottom of the seniority list,
the fact remains that the junior had got into the new
division only at a later point of time. Therefore, the
junior cannot be permitted to take a march over a
senior teacher.
12.In the present case, apart from the facts which
clearly demonstrates that the petitioner is very much
senior to Prabhu Sabestian both in terms of joining
service and also joining the new division, the above
judgment also clearly covers the facts of the present
case.
13.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that the impugned order passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
2nd respondent dated 19.09.2018, requires
interference and accordingly the same is quashed and
the petitioner is entitled to seek pay parity on par with
her junior Prabhu Sabestian, who according to the
petitioner is getting a higher pay. The 2nd respondent
is directed to rectify the pay anomaly in the case of the
petitioner and accordingly, step up the pay of the
petitioner on par with her junior Prabhu Sabestian
and extend all the consequential benefits. Necessary
orders shall be passed in this regard by the 2nd
respondent within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt copy of this order.
6. The order of the learned Judge passed in the case of
S.Premavathi (supra) came to be upheld by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court through an order dated
18.03.2021 passed in W.A.No.178 of 2021. The relevant
portions of the order of the learned Division Bench read
as follows:
..... “3.The writ petitioner~respondent has relied on the
Division Bench order passed in Madurai on November
14, 2019. Paragraph 2 of the relevant order reveals that
the appeal was directed against an order of March 13,
2019 made in W.P.(MD) No.4231 of 2019. It was also
recorded in the second paragraph that the learned
Judge had allowed the writ petition by taking note of
the directions issued in W.P.(MD) No.742 of 2018 dated
February 07, 2018.
4.By the order of November 14, 2019, the Madurai
Bench held that the writ petitioner had to be set out
over her juniors and refused to interfere with the order
impugned in that case. In view of such finding, the
order dated January 06, 2020, which is in consonance
with the order affirmed in the appeal by the Madurai
Bench, cannot be questioned. As a consequence,
W.A.No.178 of 2021 is dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs. CMP No.835 of 2021 is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
7. The aforesaid extracts are self explanatory. As such,
the claim made by the respondents that the petitioner
cannot compare herself with the pay of her junior
namely the fourth respondent herein, who has come
from another establishment, cannot be sustained.
8. This issue of bringing the senior's pay scale on par
with the junior is fortified under Fundamental Rule
22B, which came up for consideration before the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of
R.Ramaraj Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of
Judicature at Madras and another- reported in -2014
SCC Online Mad 8740- and by placing reliance on this
Fundamental Rule, the Division Bench had set right
the anomaly between the pay scales of a senior and a
junior, in the following manner:~
..... “5. Fundamental Rule 22B came up for
consideration before an Hon-ble Division Bench of this
Court in the case of R.Ramaraj Vs. The Registrar
General, High Court of Judicature at Mad 8740 and by
placing reliance on the Fundamental Rules, the
Division Bench had set right the anomaly between the
pay scales of a senior and a junior. The relevant
portion of the order reads as follows:~
“11. Further, Fundamental Rule 22~B(2) can be relied
on for stepping up of the pay of the petitioner on par
with his junior, which reads as follows:~
“Rule 22(B)(2) “ In case where both the senior and
junior are drawing the same rate of pay in lower post,
the senior who was promoted to the higher post before
drawing the next increment in the lower post would be
drawing less pay than his junior, who was promoted to
the higher post after drawing the next increment in the
lower post. In such cases, the pay of the senior officer
in that higher post and the stepping up should be done
with effect from the date of promotion or appointment
of the junior and also subject to the following
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
conditions:~
(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 anomaly should be directly as a result of the
application of Fundamental Rule 22~B. 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 increments, 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 pay. The
above ruling shall take effect from the 1st September
1966. Cases of seniors drawing less pay than juniors in
respect of promotions occurring on or after the 1st
June 1962 shall also be regulated under the above
ruling but the actual monetary benefit shall be
admissible only with effect from the 1st September
1966.Applying the said FR 22~B(2) and 27 if we
analyse, eligibility of the petitioner to step up his pay
on par with the 2nd respondent is beyond doubt.
12. The Hon-ble Supreme Court in the decision
reported in (2009) 3 SCC 94 (Gurcharan Singh Grewal
and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and
others) has considered the similar issue and held that
it is a settled principle of law that senior cannot be
paid a lesser salary than his junior and if junior is
given more pay, the department is hound to step up the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
pay of senior on par with his junior.
9. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble
Division Bench, as well as the settled proposition of
law that there cannot be an anomaly in the pay scale
of the junior and senior employee, as well as no
distinction can be made among two teachers by
stating that one of the teachers was transferred from
another Unit, cannot be sustained.
iii) S.Premavathi Vs Director of School Education, DPI Campus,
College Road, Chennai, wherein this Court, in Para 7 to 11 held thus:-
7.It is seen from records that the petitioner joined
at Ammapettai on 31.01.1991 and Prabhu Sabastian
had joined the services only on 04.10.1996. Thereafter,
the petitioner was transferred to Oothukuli Block and
even there, she had joined on 18.11.1991 and her
present block on 02.03.1994 but Prabhu Sabestian had
joined only on 04.10.1996 in Kangeyam. This is clearly
borne out by records.
8. It is therefore clear from the above that
both in terms of joining service and in terms of being
transferred into a different block, the petitioner is senior
to the said Prabhu Sabestian.
9.It will be relevant to refer the judgment of
this Court in WP (MD).No.24551 of 2018 dated
19.02.2019. The relevant portions of the judgment is
extracted hereunder:
5.Further, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner relied on the judgment passed by this Court in
W.P(MD).No.742 of 2018 dated07.02.2018 in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
K.Vijayarani Vs. The District Elementary Educational
Officer, Thoothukudi and another, wherein at paragraph
No.5, it has been held as follows:
5.The first respondent has proceeded
on the footing that since the petitioner got transferred
from Pudukkottai to Kayathar Union, it is not possible to
set right the pay anomaly. The reason assigned by the
first respondent in the impugned order is un-sustainable
in law. Even though the writ petitioner came to Kayathar
Union by way of transfer and has to be placed at the
bottom of the seniority list, the fact remains that the
Shanthi got appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher at
Kayatharu Union only later in point of time. Therefore,
by no stretch of imagination the said Shanthi could have
stolen march over the petitioner. The order impugned in
this writ petition is quashed. The respondents are directed
to set right the pay anomaly and step-up the pay of the
petitioner on par with said Shanthi. Such an order shall
be issued by the respondents within a period of eight
weeks.
6.The second respondent had filed a
Counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated as follows:
11. It is to be noted that B.Anuradha
(Panchayar Union Area, S.Pudhur)was appointed in the very
same S.Pudhur Union, ie., on 27.07.1999 and got transferred
to the same Thirupathur Union on 01.11.2000. These two
panchayat Union areas are same distinct and that the
Teaches appointed in the same Union area, compared for
fixation of pay with his junior, who came from one Unit to
another Unit, cannot be done.
12.So even basically, the question of comparison
cannot be entertained and her request cannot be entertained
and his request cannot be considered even at the initial
stage. So, the prayer of the petitioner can be set aside even at
the primary stage.
7.Following the decisions as mentioned above, this
Court had, in WP(MD)No.8046 of 2018, also passed an
order in the following terms:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
9.Therefore, it became obvious that the
petitioner all along from the date of selection and
appointment has been senior and has been marching ahead
of the said Ms.R.Vijayalakshmi. Therefore, the pay disparity
if anything found between the petitioner and the third party,
who is admittedly junior to the petitioner, the same shall be
set right by the respondent and the anomaly must be
redressed. In this regard, the only reason cited by the second
respondent in the impugned order is that if both the
petitioner and the third;party, who is junior to the petitioner,
are appointed in the same Panchayat Union, then only the
pay disparity can be redressed and as a result pay can be
stepped up to the senior person. These reasons cannot be
accepted as the seniority will not get changed, unless, the
person gives up such right of seniority, if he is transferred
from one Union to other Union by losing the right of
seniority. It was in the case on hand, the petitioner all along
has been senior and thereafter, would have been available to
the respondents for promotion. Moreover, as rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue is
no more res integra, as the learned single Judge of this
Court in the case of Vijayarani, cited supra, had an occasion
to consider the similar issue and ultimately, the learned
Single Judge has given findings, which reads thus:
5.The first respondent has proceeded on the
footing that since the petitioner got transferred from
Pudukottai to Kayathar Union, it is not possible to set right
the pay anomaly.The reason assigned by the first respondent
in the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Even though
the writ petitioner came to Kayathar Union by way of
transfer and has to be placed at the bottom of the seniority
list, the fact remains that the Shanthi got appointment as
Secondary Grade Teacher at Kayatharu Union only later in
point of time. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the
said Shanthi could have stolen march over the petitioner.
The order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. The
respondents are directed to set right the pay anomaly and
step up the pay of the petitioner on par with said Shanthi.
Such an order shall be issued by the respondents within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
period of eight weeks.
6.This Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
10. In view of the legal position and factual matrix of
this case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner shall
be entitled to seek pay parity on par with his junior, namely,
one,Ms.R.Vijayalakshmi, who according to the petitioner
gets a higher pay, who is junior to the petitioner all along.
Therefore,the said grievance of the petitioner shall be
redressed and his pay shall be stepped up on par with his
junior.
8. In view of the above said orders, it is clear that the
issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the number of
decisions, as the reason given in the impugned order was no
more being a valid one and therefore,on that ground, this
impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the
same is quashed.
10. The above judgment was also subsequently
followed in WP(MD).No.6358 of 2019 dated 25.04.2019.
11. It is clear from the above judgments that
even after the transfer of the teacher to the new division and
placing the teacher at the bottom of the seniority list, the fact
remains that the junior had got into the new division only at
a later point of time. Therefore, the junior cannot be
permitted to take a march over a senior teacher.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the second
respondent, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
6. Counter affidavit dated 06.04.2022 has been filed by the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
respondent and the relevant paragraph is extracted as hereunder:-
7. It is respectfully submitted that in obedience to this
Hon'ble Court dated 13.09.2019 made in W.P.No.30180 of
2018, “the 2nd respondent of that writ petition who is also
the 2nd respondent herein had passed the following
speaking orders in his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.8018/A5/2019, dated 26.02.2020 stating that as
the petitioner had joined in the Annagramam Union on
01.10.1986 as Secondary Grade Teacher and served as
Elementary School Headmaster, B.T.Assistant and Middle
School Headmaster on promotions within the Union and
retired from service on superannuation on 31.10.2017. The
entire service of the petitioner is only in the same Union of
Annagramam. Whereas the service put in by the junior of
the petitioner Thiru.A.Mark is started from contract basis
and then brought under regular time scale of pay and he
had transferred from other Union to Annagramam Union,
the comparison for step up of the pay of the petitioner on
par with her junior could not be considered as there is no
provision in the rules and as per the guide lines issued by
the Director of Elementary Education in his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.16907/E1/2016 dated 11.08.2016. Therefore, the
comparison of junior getting more pay than senior of the
petitioner is hereby rejected since she had compared the
pay of the person transferred from other Union”.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
averments made in the counter affidavit.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner was originally appointed as
Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 01.10.1986 in Annagaram
Panchayat Union whereas her Junior A.Mark was appointed as Secondary
Grade Teacher with effect from 25.11.1987 in Thiruonam Panchayat Union
in Thanjavur District and was transferred to Annagramam Panchayat Union
with effect from 10.11.1989 and the pay of the said junior is higher than
that of the petitioner since the said A.Mark was promoted to the post of B.T.
Assistant with effect from 02.11.2009 and was granted 2 incentive
increments for higher qualification. The petitioner was drawing a pay of
Rs.80,000/- at the time of retirement from service on 31.10.2017, whereas
the said Mark was drawing a pay of Rs.84,900/- and the said anomaly arose
only due to the fact that said Mark was granted two increments in the
promotion post, whereas the petitioner was granted incentive increment in
the original post of Secondary Grade Teacher and the impugned order was
passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioner
stating that the petitioner's junior was originally appointed in some other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
Panchayat Union and subsequently, appointed in the petitioner's union and
hence, the junior-senior comparison cannot be drawn as per the proceedings
of the 1st respondent herein dated 11.08.2016. The learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the various orders passed
by this Court referred to in paragraph No. 4 supra, wherein, this Court has
held that the junior cannot be paid higher salary than the senior for the
simple reason that he has been transferred from one Panchayat Union to
another Panchayat Union. Even in the case on hand, the petitioner has been
appointed and working in the same Panchayat union and she also retired on
attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, the respondents are directed to
rectify the pay anomaly on par with the petitioner's junior.
10. In view of the above factual matrix of the case and the ratio laid
down by this Court in the orders set out in paragraph No.4 supra, this Court
is of the considered view that the order passed by the 2 nd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.8018/A5/2019 dated 27.02.2020 is liable to be quashed and the
same is accordingly quashed.
11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed to step up the pay of the petitioner on par with her junior Mark
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
with whom pay anomaly arose, with all monetary benefits and accordingly,
revise the petitioner's pay within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
19.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
dpq
To:
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Annagramam Union,
Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
dpq
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16013 of 2020
19.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
