The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a senior employee to parity in pay with a junior employee as per the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, especially when the senior employee had acquired higher qualifications prior to the junior employee.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari cum Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the First Respondent in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.40631/A3/2004 dated 25.11.2004 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to step up the scale of pay of the Petitioner on par with that of his junior G.Subramaniam and confer all the consequential benefits.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari cum Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the First Respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.40631/A3/2004 dated 25.11.2004 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to step up the scale of pay of the Petitioner on par with that of his junior G.Subramaniyam and confer all consequential benefits.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that he joined as B.T. Headmaster of Middle School on 08.12.1972 at the Panchayat Union Middle School, Saminaickenpatty, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. He states that his services were regularised in the cadre of BT Headmaster of Middle School. He further states that he continued in the same school until 14.07.1995 in the same post. He, thereafter, acquired a M.A. degree in 1987 and a M.Ed. degree in 1989 and was, therefore, sanctioned two sets of incentive increments. In view of the fact that the Panchayat Union School was taken over by the Education Department on 14.07.1995, he was posted as an Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer on 14.07.1995 at Kadayampatti Union, Salem District. He states that he served as an Assistant Elementary Education Officer in various unions and that he reached the age of superannuation on 30.04.2003 and continued under extension of service until 31.05.2003.

3. He further states that a junior called G.Subramaniyam joined as B.T. Headmaster of Middle School on 10.02.1975 and that he acquired the higher qualification of M.Ed. in 1997 and M.A. in 2000 and was also sanctioned incentive increments for the above higher qualifications. However, the said junior was sanctioned incentive increments as per the sixth pay commission whereas the Petitioner was sanctioned incentive increments as per the fourth and fifth pay commission. As a result, the said junior was drawing higher pay than the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner made representations to step up his pay on a par with that of his junior on 17.06.2004 to the Second Respondent. However, the said representation was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner and the said junior worked in different unions and therefore there is no provision for stepping up the Petitioner's scale of pay on a par with that of his junior. The Order dated 25.11.2004 of the First Respondent refusing to step up the scale of pay of the Petitioner on a par with that of his junior is the Impugned Order in this Writ Petition.

4. The case of the Respondents is that the District Elementary Education Officer verified the alleged disparity in pay as between the Petitioner and his junior and also clarified the matter with the Director of Elementary Education. By Order dated 25.11.2004, the Director of Elementary Education stated that the Petitioner and his junior were appointed in different unions and, upon transfer, were working in different unions and, therefore, there is no provision to step up the Petitioner’s pay on a par with his junior. The Respondents further state that separate union officers, namely, the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Omalur, Salem District and the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Senthamangalam, Namakkal District, respectively, appointed the Petitioner and his junior. It is further stated that seniority is fixed only within the unit and, therefore, parity in scale of pay cannot be claimed as between persons employed by different unions. Hence, the Petitioner is not eligible for parity of pay with his junior.

5. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, admittedly, the