Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
D. Manuel
Versus
The Chief Educational Officer Thiruvannamalai
W.P.No.11714 of 2007
Decided On : 24-08-2009
Incentive Increments - Pay Parity - The court discussed the application of incentive increments and pay parity in the context of acquiring higher qualifications, and the interpretation of Rule 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher, sought pay parity with his junior who received higher pay due to acquiring higher qualifications after the pay revision. The respondent denied the request based on different qualifications for which incentive increments were granted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a senior employee, was entitled to pay parity with the junior employee as per Rule 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998. The court also emphasized the constitutional right of seniors to claim parity with juniors' pay.
Issues: The issues involved the denial of pay parity to the petitioner based on the different qualifications for which incentive increments were granted and the application of Rule 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if a senior employee received incentive increments for higher qualifications prior to the pay revision, and the junior employee acquired higher qualifications later, the senior's pay should be brought on par with the junior's pay if the junior's pay became more due to the sanction of incentive increments for acquiring higher qualifications.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.
The Original Application in O.A.No.719 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) is now writ petition in W.P.No.11714 of 2007 before this Court.
2. Heard the submissions made by Mr.P.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
3. The petitioner is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher at the Government Higher Secondary School, Perumkolathur, Thiruvannamalai District. He was initially appointed on 211. 1984 in Cuddalore District. He was transferred to Thiruvannamalai District on 13.08.1997.
4. The petitioner was allowed one incentive increment (two advance increments) with effect from 10.03.1989 for acquiring B.Ed., qualification. He was allowed one incentive increment (two advance increments) for acquiring M.Ed., with effect from 01.06.1994.
5. In the meantime, his junior, viz., Mr.L.Devaraj was allowed one incentive increment (two advance increments) with effect from 24.05.1996 for acquiring B.Ed., qualification. His junior was also allowed one more incentive increment (two advance increments) for acquiring M.A. with effect from 011. 1996
6. When the pay was revised pursuant to the recommendations of the VI Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996, the scale of pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.5,450, while the pay of his junior was fixed at Rs.5200/- as on 01.01.1996.
7. Since the junior obtained B.Ed., and M.Ed. after 01.01.1996, his pay was revised to Rs.5,600/- from 24.05.1996 and Rs.6,050/-from 011. 1996 for acquiring B.Ed., and M.Ed., qualifications respectively. As on 01.07.1999, the petitioner was receiving Rs.6050/- as his basic pay, while his junior was in receipt of Rs.6500/-. The petitioner, therefore sought to rectify the anomaly.
8. But the respondent passed the impugned order dated 110. 2001 based on the guidelines of the Director of School Education in g.K.vz;. 051162/L3/98 dated 03.01.2000, stating that the petitioner could not seek parity with his junior, because, while the petitioner was granted advance increments for acquiring B.Ed., and M.Ed., his junior was granted incentive increments for acquiring B.Ed., and M.A, that is for different qualifications.
9. The learned counsel contends that admittedly the said Mr.L.Devaraj is junior to the petitioner as he joined only on 210. 1985, whereas the petitioner joined on 211. 1984. It is stated in the impugned order that since his junior got incentive increments for acquiring higher qualification viz., M.A., which is different from the higher qualification acquired by the petitioner viz., M.Ed., the petitioner could not seek the rectification of anomaly. Such a reasoning is absurd and it has to be rejected. For acquiring higher qualifications whether it is M.A., or M.Ed., one incentive increment (two advance increments) is given to the Teachers. Hence, the impugned order was passed without application of mind.
10. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice Rule 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 and the same is extracted hereunder:
"(2) In cases where a senior employee who had drawn incentive increments in the pre-revised scale and drawn more pay than his junior prior to 1ST January 1996 draws lesser pay than his junior in the revised scales of pay consequent on the sanction of incentive increments in the revised scales of pay to the junior for acquiring the same higher / special qualification after introduction of revised scales of pay, then the pay of the senior may be stepped up to the level of that of the junior from the date from which the junior draws such higher pay".
11. This Rule provides an answer to the problem. As per this Rule, if a junior receives more pay pursuant to his acquiring higher qualification after the revision of pay on 01.01.1996, the senior should also be brought on par with the junior, particularly when the senior was granted in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
