Madras High Court
Unknown vs C.Madhaiyan on 18 September, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 2666 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-09-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 2666 of 2025
AND
CMP.No. 21445 of 2025
1. The Secretary to Government
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600009
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai-600006.
3.The Joint Director of School Education (NSS)
College Road, Chennai-600006.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Salem District, Salem.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:32:36 pm )
W.A No. 2666 of 2025
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Mettur Dam, Salem District. ..Appellants
Vs
1.C.Madhaiyan
2.The Accountant General,
(Accounts and Establishments)
361, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai-600018. ..Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 27.09.2024 passed in W.P.No. 25231 of 2024.
For Appellant: Mr.S.Yashwanth, AGP
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathishkumar - R1
Mr. V.Vijayashankar, Standing Counsel-R2
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal assails the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 23251 of 2024. By the said order, the
appellant was directed to step up the pay of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:32:36 pm )
on par with his junior, K. Saravanan, and to grant him the consequential
monetary benefits. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Secondary
Grade Teacher on 24.03.1983 at the Government Higher Secondary School and
was subsequently promoted to the post of Tamil Pandit. However, his junior,
K. Saravanan, who was appointed subsequently, and was drawing a higher pay.
Consequently, the writ petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.03.2011
seeking rectification of the anomaly in the pay scale.
2. The 1st appellant rejected the said representation, stating that the
higher pay drawn by the junior was due to the incentive increments granted to
him. The learned Single Judge, however, set aside the order of the 1st appellant
by relying on the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 8666 of 2023, dated
20.08.2024, wherein it was held that if, while implementing a pay revision, a
junior draws more pay than a senior, the pay of the senior must be stepped up to
that of the junior. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:32:36 pm )
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the anomaly between
the writ petitioner and his junior arose only on account of the incentive
increments granted to the junior for acquiring higher educational qualifications,
and therefore, the pay of the writ petitioner cannot be stepped up.
4. In response, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the
impugned order was passed after relying on the earlier decision of this Court in
W.P. No. 8666 of 2023 which has been implemented, and therefore, the writ
petitioner cannot be discriminated against by denying him the same benefit
extended to similarly placed persons.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was promoted to the post of
Tamil Pandit, and was granted selection grade of pay for the promoted post
(Tamil Pandit) by counting the services in the selection grade of secondary post
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:32:36 pm )
on 11.01.2007. However, his junior, namely K. Saravanan, who was promoted
as Tamil Pandit subsequently, came to draw a higher pay than the writ
petitioner. The learned Single Judge, relying on the earlier decision in W.P. No.
8666 of 2023, dated 20.08.2024, held that the appellants’ justification namely,
that the writ petitioner was not entitled to stepping up since the junior was
drawing higher salary on account of incentive increments was unsustainable.
The learned Single Judge observed that this principle, flowing from the
interpretation of Rule 27(2) of the Fundamental Rules, is now well settled.
Furthermore, in the additional affidavit filed by the 4th appellant, it is admitted
that the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 8666 of 2023 has already been
implemented.
7. In light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding
that the writ petitioner is entitled to stepping up of his pay on par with his
junior, K. Saravanan, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. The
impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting
interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:32:36 pm )
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. The
appellants are granted three months time to comply with the directions issued
by the learnd Single Judge in the impugned order.
(R.S.K. J.,) (H.C. J.,)
18.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
To
The Accountant General,
(Accounts and Establishments)
361, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai-600018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:32:36 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
18.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:32:36 pm )
