High Court · 2025

W.P.No.30527 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHAW.P.No.30527 of 2023 andW.M.P.No.30161 of 2023M.Sampathu ...PetitionerVs.1. The Director of Elementary Education,Chennai - 600 006.2. The District Educational Officer,Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.3. The Block Educational Officer-I,Anakkavur,Thiruvannamalai District...RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to 2nd respondent Pro.Na.Ka.No.0781/A3/2022, dated 18.07.2023 to quash the same and issue consequential direction to the 2nd respondent rectify the anamoly of "junior drawing more pay than senior" by stepping up the pay of the petitioner (senior) on par with his junior (R.Raghupathi) with effect from 26.08.2008 and disburse the monetory benefits thereof with interest, within a time frame.For Petitioner:Mr. P.Murali1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30527 of 2023For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Prabhakaran,Government AdvocateO R D E RThe writ petition is filed for the below relief:calling for the records relating to 2nd respondent Pro.Na.Ka.No.0781/A3/2022, dated 18.07.2023 to quash the same and issue consequential direction to the 2nd respondent rectify the anamoly of "junior drawing more pay than senior" by stepping up the pay of the petitioner (senior) on par with his junior (R.Raghupathi) with effect from 26.08.2008 and disburse the monetory benefits thereof with interest, within a time frame.2. The brief facts which has culminated in the filing of this writ petition are set out below:2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 28.06.1991. After ten years of service, he had been awarded with selection grade in the said post. On 30.09.2004, the petitioner was promoted as Primary School Headmaster and subsequently on 02.06.2010, he had been promoted as B.T. Teacher. It is the contention of the petitioner that one R.Ragupathi had been appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher on 07.08.1995 and promoted as Primary School Headmaster 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30527 of 2023on 22.07.2005 and promoted as B.T Teacher on 02.06.2010. It is his contention, that as per the 6th Pay Commission and One Man Commission, the said Ragupathi was drawing salary to the tune of Rs.18,770/- whereas the petitioner was drawing a salary of only Rs.17,650/-. 3. To ensure the pay parity, the petitioner had made a representation dated 19.09.2018 to the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent by order dated 29.11.2018 had rejected the petitioner's claim. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.18685 of 2019 to quash the order dated 29.11.2018 and to fix the pay on par with the petitioner's junior. The same was set aside by order dated 11.07.2022 by this Court. Despite directions issued by this Court, the respondent had not processed the representation of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.1313 of 2023, meanwhile, the 2nd respondent has passed an order in Pro.Na,Ka.No.0781/A3/2022 dated 18.07.2023 rejecting the claim on untenable grounds. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.4. Heard the learned Counsels on either side and perused the records.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2867 of 2022 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30527 of 2023dated 26.06.2024, wherein a similar issue has been considered and orders/ clarifications have been passed and, therefore, submits that the benefit of the said order may be given to the petitioner as well.6. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2867 of 2022 dated 26.06.2024 relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner is extracted hereunder:-" 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had an occasion to consider the same question in S.P.Meera vs. The State of Tamil Nadu. In that case, the junior acquired a higher qualification at a later date, and as such, was granted advance increments in a higher quantum as per the revised pay rules, resulting in a pay anomaly. The respondents are reading the proviso to Rule 13(1) of the revised pay rules to deny the stepping up. Whenever the junior's pay increases on account of the advance increment that are granted to her, then stepping up in pay need not be resorted to. But the proviso does not address the situation where the senior also possesses the same qualification and has also drawn the advance increment. Therefore, by misapplying the proviso, the benefit is denied by the respondents.11. On the contrary, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs. P.Jagdish and Others 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30527 of 2023reported in AIR 1997 SC 1783 specifically considered the said situation and held that even in such cases, stepping up of pay has to be resorted to. This Court considered the question in detail and, after considering FR 27(2) , ordered that relief be granted to the senior. As a matter of fact, placing reliance on FR.22(B) as well as G.O.Ms.25 is out of place in the instant case. It is not a case where the pay anamoly arises on account of promotion being granted after the difference in selection grade or special grade pay. This is the case where the anomaly arise only on account of the junior acquiring the higher qualification at a later date and being granted advance increments at a later date after the revised rates of increment. That situation is no governed by F.R.22(B) or G.O.Ms.25.12. In fact, the proviso to the revised pay rules in Rule 13(1) also does not address the said situation, and that question has been considered by t his Court in S.P.Meera (cited supra) and relief has been granted to the petitioner. The ration in the said case would apply, to the present case as well. Accordingly, this petitioner is entitled to succeed. In the said case, also following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai reported in (2007) 6 SCC 524, by balancing the interest since the petitioner is approaching this Court belatedly, the arrears were restricted from the date of filing of the writ petition. The same would apply 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30527 of 2023in the present case as well.7. In light of the above, following the aforesaid decision, the impugned order dated 18.07.2023 is set aside and the second respondent shall consider the request of the petitioner dated 19.09.2018 afresh and pass orders thereon by stepping up the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior with effect from 26.08.2008 and accordingly refixing the pay and granting all the benefits. However, the petitioner will be entitled to the arrears of pay with effect from the date of filing the Writ Petition. i.e., only with effect from 17.10.2023. 8. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.13.08.2025ShlIndex: Yes/No Internet: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderNeutral Citation Case: Yes/NoTo6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30527 of 20231. The Director of Elementary Education,Chennai - 600 006.2. The District Educational Officer,Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.3. The Block Educational Officer-I,Anakkavur,Thiruvannamalai District7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30527 of 2023P.T.ASHA J.shlW.P.No.30527 of 2023 andW.M.P.No.30161 of 202313.08.20258/8