Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4166
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
P. Thangavelu
Versus
Director of School Education, Madras & Others
W.P. No. 40686 of 2006 (O.A. No. 2517 of 2000)
Decided On : 21-09-2010
For the Petitioner:M/s. N.A. Nissar Ahamed, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 & R2 - Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, G.A.
Seniors are entitled to equal pay on par with their juniors, regardless of the timing of obtaining higher qualifications.
Headnote:
Equal Pay - Government Employee - The court directed the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay on par with the junior employee who obtained higher qualification after pay revision, emphasizing the principle that seniors are entitled to equal pay on par with their juniors.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a B.T. Assistant in a Government High School, sought pay on par with his junior who obtained higher qualification after pay revision, resulting in the junior receiving more pay.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay on par with the junior employee and to pay arrears and revise terminal benefits within eight weeks.
Issues: Anomaly in pay due to junior employee obtaining higher qualification after pay revision, denying equal pay to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Seniors are entitled to equal pay on par with their juniors, and the timing of obtaining higher qualification after pay revision cannot be a reason to deny equal pay.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to fix the petitioner's pay on par with the junior employee, pay arrears, and revise terminal benefits within eight weeks.
1. The petitioner is a B.T. Assistant in Government High School. He obtained higher qualifications and he was granted incentive increments for the same before pay revision.
2. After pay revision, the 3rd respondent who is junior to the petitioner obtained higher qualification and he was granted incentive increments. Since he was given incentive increments after pay revision, the junior got more pay. Hence an anomaly arose. The petitioner seeks pay on par with the pay of his junior.
3. The petitioner cannot be penalised for acquiring higher qualification at an earlier point of time. It is well settled that the seniors are entitled to equal pay on par with his juniors. The junior was granted higher pay since he obtained higher qualification after the pay revision. This could not be a reason to deny the equal pay for the petitioner.
4. Hence the writ petition is allowed and this Court directs the respondents R1 and R2 to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with the 3rd respondent with effect from 31.12.1992 and consequently to pay the arrears. The respondents R1 and R2 are also directed to revise the terminal benefits and to pay arrears thereon. The respondents R1 and R2 are directed to complete the exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
