Madras High Court
The Principal Secretary To The ... vs / on 6 October, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
W.A.(MD)No.2561 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.(MD)No.2561 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)No.14645 of 2025
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Finance Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
3.The Director of School Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
4.The Joint Director (Vocational),
Directorate of School Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai-600 006. ...Appellants
/Vs./
R.Jeganathan ... Respondent
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to
set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.14571 of 2024 dated
04.07.2024 on the file of this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:25 am )
W.A.(MD)No.2561 of 2025
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.R.Muthumani
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
Heard Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader, for
the appellants and Mr.R.Muthumani, learned counsel for the respondent.
2.Both the learned counsel would accede to the position that
the very issue relating to applicability of Tamil Nadu Revision of Scales
of Pay Rules, 2009 to vocational Instructors, has been decided by this
Court in a batch of cases in W.A.(MD)No.468 of 2025 and batch on
29.08.2025 in favour of the State. The operative portion of that order is
as follows:-
“12.We cannot approve the aforesaid order made in W.P.No.
15570 of 2021. This is for more than one reason. Firstly, the learned
Single Judge had failed to note that additional fitment table 15 can be
applied only if it is shown that the pay band of the post in question had
been elevated from one pay band to another pay band on account of
implementation of the recommendations of the One Man Commission.
Nowhere such a finding has been given. Secondly, according to the
learned Single Judge, if Rule 4(1)(iii) is applied in its real sense,
additional fitment table 15 has to be applied to the post of Vocational
Instructors also. This is incorrect. There is is no logical basis for linking
Rule 4(1)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2009 with the
additional fitment tables annexed to government letter dated 15.09.2010.
Thirdly, matters relating to pay fixation cannot be adjudicated by the Writ
Courts since they have large financial implications. They are essentially
policy decisions to be taken by the government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:25 am )
13.Not all Vocational Instructors were getting the same pay as
on 01.01.2006. Their pay was revised by applying the multiplying their
existing basic pay as on 01.01.2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off
the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10. As per Rule 4(1)(ii), if the
minimum of the revised pay band / pay scale is more than the amount
arrived at as per the method mentioned above, it shall be fixed at the
minimum of the revised pay band / pay scale. The consequence of
adopting this method was that those who were getting higher pay as on
01.01.2006 and those who were getting lesser pay in the post of Vocational
Instructors got bunched and were placed at the same level. This had to be
necessarily set right. Rule 4(1)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay
Rules, 2009 provided the solution. Since the Vocational Instructors placed
their grievances complaining of anomalies, the Pay Grievance Cell was
constituted under G.O.(Ms)No.123 Finance Department dated 10.04.2012.
Based on its recommendations, G.O.(Ms)No.263 Finance Department
dated 22.07.2013 was issued and the revision took place as follows:
Name of the Post Existing scale of pay Revised scale of pay
+ Grade Pay + Grade pay
Vocational Teachers 9300-34800+4400 9300-34800+4600
/ Instructors
It is clear from above that the revision that was made was only in respect
of grade pay. The pay band was not all at touched or revised. The pay
scale or the pay band of the Vocational Instructors remained the same and
it was not elevated from one level to another level. As already mentioned,
only if there is revision from one pay band to higher level, the additional
fitment table will apply and not otherwise. The migration from one pay
band to higher pay band is a pre-requisite condition for invoking
additional fitment table. This pre-condition has not been fulfilled in the
case of Vocational Instructors. To reiterate, revision should be in the case
of ordinary grade scale of pay. The ordinary grade scale of Vocational
Instructors did not witness any migration to higher level consequent to the
recommendation of One Man Commission vide G.O.(Ms)Nos.254 to 340
Finance Department dated 26.08.2010.
14.What was revised was only the pay scales of those
Vocational Instructors who were in the selection grade. Their pay scales
was revised to Rs.15,600 - 39100+ GP 5400/-. The pay scale of those
Vocational Instructor in the special grade was revised to Rs.15,600 -
39100 + GP 5700/-. When the government vide letter No.
66858/CMPC/2013-2 dated 22.08.2014 took the stand that the revised
selection grade scale of pay for the Vocational Instructors would also be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:25 am )
Rs.9300 -34800 + GP 4800/-, it was quashed vide order dated 19.03.2018
in W.P.(MD)No.2654 of 2018 etc batch. The order passed in the aforesaid
writ petitions was also implemented by the government vide G.O.(Ms)No.
306 Finance Department dated 12.09.2018. The said government order is
as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:25 am )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:25 am )
Thus, the grievances of the Vocational Instructors in selection
grade and special grade have already been redressed. The Vocational
Instructors were originally treated on par with B.T. Assistants. The B.T.
Assistants had two promotional opportunities. The first level of promotion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:25 am )
was as P.G. Assistant / High School Headmaster and the second level was
as Higher Secondary School Headmaster. If a B.T. Assistant stagnated
without getting promotion, the selection grade / special grade scale of pay
has to be fixed by restricting to the first level and second level promotion
post, as a result, the position of B.T. Assistant was as follows:-
Ordinary Grade Selection Grade Special Grade
9300-34800+G.P. 9300-34800+G.P. 15600-39100+G.P.
4600 4800 5700
15.The learned Advocate General commented that even though
the educational qualification of Vocational Instructors cannot be
compared at all to that of a B.T. Assistant still, a selection grade
Vocational Instructor gets more grade pay whereas a special grade
Vocational Instructor is in a far higher pay scale.
16.For those in higher administrative grade or in pay band 4,
the benefits of increment due to bunching shall be given taking into
account all the stages in different pay scales in that grade. Admittedly, the
Vocational Instructors do not fall in higher administrative grade and they
are not in pay band 4. Therefore, they cannot invoke the said rule.
17.Looked at from any angle, the order of the learned Single
Judge cannot be sustained. It is set aside. These writ appeals are
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.”
3.In light of the identity of the issue, this writ appeal is
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,]
06.10.2025
(4/4)
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:25 am )
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
ta
06.10.2025
(4/4)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:25 am )
