Madrasdated High Court · 2024

W.P.No.26714 of 2022Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.B1/8192/2021 dated 10.05.2022 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-est in law and consequently, direct the respondents to rectify the pay anomaly with effect from 18.03.2013 with all consequential monetary benefits and to disburse the arrears with 12 % interest.For the Petitioner:Mr.A.R.Balaji For the Respondents:Mr.C.JayaprakashGovernment AdvocateORDERThe Writ Petition is filed calling for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent, relating to the impugned order dated 10.05.2022 to quash the same and consequently rectify the pay anomaly with effect from 18.03.2013 with all consequential monetary benefits and to disburse the arrears with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum.2.The case of the petitioner is that he and one Venkatesan were Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022appointed to the service on the same date i.e., 17.03.1986 as Grade II Police Constables. Further, they were promoted as Havildar on the same day, that is on 18.03.1994. As on the date of promotion, both their scales of pay were one and the same. Both the petitioner as well as the said Venkatesan were further promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 18.03.2003 and their pay was fixed at Rs.5,300/- at the same level. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police on 01.01.2011, even though the said Venkatesan was also within the zone of consideration, he relinquished the promotion and continued in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police itself. Since Venkatesan continued in the post of Sub-Inspector, he was conferred with selection grade pay, subsequently, he was promoted as Inspector of Police with effect from 16.07.2017 and his pay was fixed at Rs.23,870/-. Finally, he voluntarily retired from service on 31.01.2018 and his last drawn salary as on 31.01.2018 was Rs.64,600/-. However, when the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police and superannuated from service, his pay was Rs.60,600/-. Therefore, in view of the pay anomaly, the petitioner’s pay has to be stepped up and rectified by the respondents. When the petitioner made Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022a representation, the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.05.2022. The only reason which is mentioned in the impugned order is that even at the time of initial appointment, the said Venkatesan had the educational qualification of 10th standard, whereas the petitioner’s educational qualification was only a pass in 8th Standard. 3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the same can never be a criterion to reject the case of the petitioner. He would submit that the respondents are not denying the fact that the said Venkatesan is junior to the petitioner. The respondents also not deny the pay disparity between the senior and the junior. The learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court to the comparative tabular column filed by the respondents in the counter affidavit, would submit that it can be seen that from 17.03.1986, upto the promotion to the post of Havildar no disparity in pay had occurred though the different educational qualifications existed. On 18.03.1994, both the petitioner as well as the Venkatesan were promoted as Havildar on the same day and their pay was fixed at Rs.1,200/- Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022at the same level. Therefore, the level of Havildar as well as further promotion at the level of Sub-Inspector of Police their pay was one and the same. Pay anomaly arose only because of the fact that the said Venkatesan relinquished his promotion and in that process, he was conferred special grade in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and thereafter when he was subsequently promoted, the pay anomaly arose. Therefore, the higher qualification, which the said junior had at the initial stage of appointment in the year 1986 can never be a relevant criteria. As a matter of fact, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner had also passed the 10th standard after obtaining due permission. Therefore, he would submit that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner cannot compare himself with the said Venkatesan. The tabular column clearly depicts that the initial pay which was fixed for the petitioner is Rs.505/-, whereas, the said Venkatesan's initial pay was fixed at Rs.525/- as on 17.03.1986. Therefore, when the petitioner and the other person had Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022different educational qualifications, the cases between them are not comparable and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.6.The fact that Mr.Venkatesan is junior to the petitioner is admitted. It is essential to reproduce the comparative tabular statement which is made by the respondents in Pg.6 of their counter affidavit. For ready reference the same is reproduced hereunder:-Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 20227.On a careful perusal of the same, it would be clear that the said Venkatesan initially had the higher qualification of 10th Standard and his pay was fixed at Rs.525/-, while the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.505/- far as the cadre of Grade II Police Constables criteria is concerned. However, the pay of the petitioner and the said Venkatesan’s pay became the same level Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022with effect from 18.03.1994 upon promotion to the post of Havildar. Therefore, the possession of higher qualification and fixation of higher pay prior to the cadre of Havildar was not at all relevant to the instant case.8.Both of them were also promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on the same day, i.e., 18.03.1994 and it can be seen that their pay was fixed at the same level, i.e., Rs.1,200/- and they were drawing equal pay and increments. It can be seen that the turn for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, for both the petitioner as well as the said Venkatesan came on 01.01.2011. When Venkatesan relinquished his promotion, the petitioner was promoted. In the meanwhile, since the said Venkatesan had put in 10 years of service, he was granted with selection grade and thereafter belatedly when he was promoted as Inspector of Police, his pay was fixed at a higher rate, i.e., at Rs.64,300/-, while the petitioner was drawing lower pay i.e., Rs.60,600/- as on 31.10.2017.9.Thus, it can be seen that on account of the reasons not attributable Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022to the petitioner, but only on the vagaries in fixation of the pay scale on the part of the respondents, a person who relinquished promotion for a period of 3 years and thereafter accepted promotion is fixed with more pay, while the petitioner’s pay is less. In such a situation, as per the explanation to FR 22 (B), the petitioner’s pay has to be fixed on par with that of his junior. However, it can be seen that the pay anomaly occurred as early as in the year 2017, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition only in the year 2022, after his superannuation. It can be seen that in matters of fixation of pay, it is a continuous cause of action, however, the petitioner will be entitled to arrears from the period of one year prior to the filing of the present Writ Petition alone.10.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:-(i)The impugned order is quashed;(ii)The respondents are directed to rectify the pay anomaly of the petitioner by granting him such pay so as to match the pay of the junior – R.Venkatesan, with effect from 17.07.2017 and accordingly, re-fix all his Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022last drawn pay and also pension. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for any other arrears, except the arrears of pension from September 2021, i.e., one year prior to the filing of the present Writ Petition.(iii)The respondents shall complete the exercise of granting such special pay and arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(iv)No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 03.04.2024Index : Yes Neutral Citation: Yes Speaking order: YesJerPage 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022To1.The Additional Director General of Police Office of the ADGPNo.10, Armed Police HeadquartersLotus Garden, KilpaukChennai – 600 010.2.The Inspector General of PoliceOffice of the IGPArmed Police HeadquartersKilpaukChennai – 600 010.3.The Commandant – XIV BattalionOffice of the CommandantTSP XIV BattalionPalani.Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J. Jer W.P.No .26714 of 2022 03.04.2024Page 14 of 14

W.P.No.26714 of 2022Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.B1/8192/2021 dated 10.05.2022 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-est in law and consequently, direct the respondents to rectify the pay anomaly with effect from 18.03.2013 with all consequential monetary benefits and to disburse the arrears with 12 % interest.For the Petitioner:Mr.A.R.Balaji For the Respondents:Mr.C.JayaprakashGovernment AdvocateORDERThe Writ Petition is filed calling for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent, relating to the impugned order dated 10.05.2022 to quash the same and consequently rectify the pay anomaly with effect from 18.03.2013 with all consequential monetary benefits and to disburse the arrears with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum.2.The case of the petitioner is that he and one Venkatesan were Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022appointed to the service on the same date i.e., 17.03.1986 as Grade II Police Constables. Further, they were promoted as Havildar on the same day, that is on 18.03.1994. As on the date of promotion, both their scales of pay were one and the same. Both the petitioner as well as the said Venkatesan were further promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 18.03.2003 and their pay was fixed at Rs.5,300/- at the same level. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police on 01.01.2011, even though the said Venkatesan was also within the zone of consideration, he relinquished the promotion and continued in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police itself. Since Venkatesan continued in the post of Sub-Inspector, he was conferred with selection grade pay, subsequently, he was promoted as Inspector of Police with effect from 16.07.2017 and his pay was fixed at Rs.23,870/-. Finally, he voluntarily retired from service on 31.01.2018 and his last drawn salary as on 31.01.2018 was Rs.64,600/-. However, when the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police and superannuated from service, his pay was Rs.60,600/-. Therefore, in view of the pay anomaly, the petitioner’s pay has to be stepped up and rectified by the respondents. When the petitioner made Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022a representation, the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.05.2022. The only reason which is mentioned in the impugned order is that even at the time of initial appointment, the said Venkatesan had the educational qualification of 10th standard, whereas the petitioner’s educational qualification was only a pass in 8th Standard. 3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the same can never be a criterion to reject the case of the petitioner. He would submit that the respondents are not denying the fact that the said Venkatesan is junior to the petitioner. The respondents also not deny the pay disparity between the senior and the junior. The learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court to the comparative tabular column filed by the respondents in the counter affidavit, would submit that it can be seen that from 17.03.1986, upto the promotion to the post of Havildar no disparity in pay had occurred though the different educational qualifications existed. On 18.03.1994, both the petitioner as well as the Venkatesan were promoted as Havildar on the same day and their pay was fixed at Rs.1,200/- Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022at the same level. Therefore, the level of Havildar as well as further promotion at the level of Sub-Inspector of Police their pay was one and the same. Pay anomaly arose only because of the fact that the said Venkatesan relinquished his promotion and in that process, he was conferred special grade in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and thereafter when he was subsequently promoted, the pay anomaly arose. Therefore, the higher qualification, which the said junior had at the initial stage of appointment in the year 1986 can never be a relevant criteria. As a matter of fact, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner had also passed the 10th standard after obtaining due permission. Therefore, he would submit that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner cannot compare himself with the said Venkatesan. The tabular column clearly depicts that the initial pay which was fixed for the petitioner is Rs.505/-, whereas, the said Venkatesan's initial pay was fixed at Rs.525/- as on 17.03.1986. Therefore, when the petitioner and the other person had Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022different educational qualifications, the cases between them are not comparable and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.6.The fact that Mr.Venkatesan is junior to the petitioner is admitted. It is essential to reproduce the comparative tabular statement which is made by the respondents in Pg.6 of their counter affidavit. For ready reference the same is reproduced hereunder:-Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 20227.On a careful perusal of the same, it would be clear that the said Venkatesan initially had the higher qualification of 10th Standard and his pay was fixed at Rs.525/-, while the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.505/- far as the cadre of Grade II Police Constables criteria is concerned. However, the pay of the petitioner and the said Venkatesan’s pay became the same level Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022with effect from 18.03.1994 upon promotion to the post of Havildar. Therefore, the possession of higher qualification and fixation of higher pay prior to the cadre of Havildar was not at all relevant to the instant case.8.Both of them were also promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on the same day, i.e., 18.03.1994 and it can be seen that their pay was fixed at the same level, i.e., Rs.1,200/- and they were drawing equal pay and increments. It can be seen that the turn for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, for both the petitioner as well as the said Venkatesan came on 01.01.2011. When Venkatesan relinquished his promotion, the petitioner was promoted. In the meanwhile, since the said Venkatesan had put in 10 years of service, he was granted with selection grade and thereafter belatedly when he was promoted as Inspector of Police, his pay was fixed at a higher rate, i.e., at Rs.64,300/-, while the petitioner was drawing lower pay i.e., Rs.60,600/- as on 31.10.2017.9.Thus, it can be seen that on account of the reasons not attributable Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022to the petitioner, but only on the vagaries in fixation of the pay scale on the part of the respondents, a person who relinquished promotion for a period of 3 years and thereafter accepted promotion is fixed with more pay, while the petitioner’s pay is less. In such a situation, as per the explanation to FR 22 (B), the petitioner’s pay has to be fixed on par with that of his junior. However, it can be seen that the pay anomaly occurred as early as in the year 2017, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition only in the year 2022, after his superannuation. It can be seen that in matters of fixation of pay, it is a continuous cause of action, however, the petitioner will be entitled to arrears from the period of one year prior to the filing of the present Writ Petition alone.10.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:-(i)The impugned order is quashed;(ii)The respondents are directed to rectify the pay anomaly of the petitioner by granting him such pay so as to match the pay of the junior – R.Venkatesan, with effect from 17.07.2017 and accordingly, re-fix all his Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022last drawn pay and also pension. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for any other arrears, except the arrears of pension from September 2021, i.e., one year prior to the filing of the present Writ Petition.(iii)The respondents shall complete the exercise of granting such special pay and arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(iv)No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 03.04.2024Index : Yes Neutral Citation: Yes Speaking order: YesJerPage 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022To1.The Additional Director General of Police Office of the ADGPNo.10, Armed Police HeadquartersLotus Garden, KilpaukChennai – 600 010.2.The Inspector General of PoliceOffice of the IGPArmed Police HeadquartersKilpaukChennai – 600 010.3.The Commandant – XIV BattalionOffice of the CommandantTSP XIV BattalionPalani.Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26714 of 2022D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J. Jer W.P.No .26714 of 2022 03.04.2024Page 14 of 14