High Court · 2025

W.A.(MD)No.2699 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 15.10.2025CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH ANDTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANW.A.(MD)No.2699 of 2025 &C.M.P.(MD)No.15293 of 20251.The Principal Secretary to Government,Finance Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.2.The Principal Secretary to Government,School Education Department,Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.3.The Commissioner of School Education,Directorate of School Education,DPI Complex, College Road,Chennai.4.The Accountant General,O/o.The Accountant General (A & E),361, Anna Salai, Teynampet,Chennai - 600 018.5.The Joint Director (Vocational),Directorate of School Education,DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai. ... Appellants/Vs./1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2699 of 2025K.Loganathan ... RespondentPRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14480 of 2024.For Appellants: Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government PleaderFor Respondent: No appearanceJUDGEMENT (Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)No appearance for the respondent.2. Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants states that the issue that arises for consideration is covered by an order passed on 06.10.2025 in W.A.(MD)No.2567 of 2025, wherein, we have applied the ratio of the order in W.A.(MD)No.468 of 2025, dated 29.08.2025 in favour of the State. The operative portion of the latter 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 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2699 of 2025question 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.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 PostExisting scale of pay + Grade PayRevised scale of pay + Grade payVocational Teachers / Instructors 9300-34800+44009300-34800+46003/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2699 of 2025It 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 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:-4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2699 of 20255/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2699 of 20256/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2699 of 20257/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2699 of 2025Thus, 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 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 GradeSelection GradeSpecial Grade9300-34800+G.P.46009300-34800+G.P.480015600-39100+G.P.570015.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.”8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2699 of 20253. In light of the identity of the issue, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 15.10.2025 NCC:Yes/NoIndex :Yes/NoInternet:Yesmbi9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2699 of 2025Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.ANDC.KUMARAPPAN, J.mbiOrder made inW.A.(MD)No.2699 of 2025Dated:15.10.202510/10