The court emphasized that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.154, subject to the condition that any of his juniors in the Finance Department were given a higher pay, and that the comparison with Mr.R.V.Nathan cannot be countenanced.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.126 P & A.R Department dated 25.09.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.154 P & A.R. Department dated 30.10.2009 and consequently direct the inclusion of the Petitioner's name in the U.O. Note dated 25.11.2009 so as to enable the Petitioner to get the upgradation and stepping up of pay on par with his juniors in the Finance Department viz., Thiru.R.V.Nathan with effect from 30.10.2009.)

1. In this writ petition, the Petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.126, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (P&AR Department), dated 25.09.1998 (G.O.Ms.No.126) and G.O.Ms.No.154, P&AR Department, dated 30.10.2009 (G.O.Ms.No.154) and consequently direct the inclusion of the Petitioner's name in the U.O. Note dated 25.11.2009 so as to enable the Petitioner to get the upgradation and stepping up of pay on par with his juniors in the Finance Department with effect from 30.10.2009.

2. The Petitioner was selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (the TNPSC) for the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service (the TN Secretariat Service) in 1981 and appointed as a steno-typist in the Education Department on 01.01.1982. As per the common seniority list, the Petitioner was in the 34th position, whereas Thiru.R.V.Nathan, his immediate junior, was in the 35th position. The said R.V.Nathan was posted in the Finance Department and was promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary to Government in the Finance Department while the Petitioner continues to be a Section Officer. The State Government was conscious of the fact that persons posted in the Finance Department received promotions on an accelerated basis as compared to their contemporaries or even seniors in other units. In order to redress this anomaly, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.126 to direct the pay of seniors in one unit, who were recruited to the TN Secretariat Service on before 28.01.1994, to be stepped up on a par with their juniors in the Finance Department by upgrading the post held by them to the scale of pay applicable to their juniors in the Finance Department. This benefit was not extended to the Petitioner at the relevant point of time because he was working as a converted Assistant, i.e. a typist who opted for conversion to the post of Assistant.

3. Thereafter, the Petitioner made a representation dated 05.06.1998 contending that his name had been erroneously omitted. Upon receipt of representations from persons such as the Petitioner, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.171, P & AR Department dated 28.09.2006 (G.O.Ms.No.171) directing that Assistant Section Officers (ASOs), who were promoted from the post of Assistant and were senior to the ASO's promoted from the post of typist, be given pay parity and upgradation on par with their juniors by applying the yardstick set out in GO.Ms.No.126. On account of G.O.Ms.No.171, the Petitioner derived the limited relief of pay parity and upgradation with juniors in the same unit. However, as regards the pay anomaly as between persons like the Petitioner and those in the Finance Department, the situation continued to remain the same. Therefore, several representations were made and this resulted in the Government issuing G.O.Ms.No.154. By this Government Order, it was directed that the pay of the seniors in one unit who were recruited to the TN Secretariat Service on or before 21.08.1994 and promoted as ASO from the category of Assistant shall be upgraded on a par with their juniors in the Finance Unit with effect from 30.10.2009. Subsequent to this Government order, U.O. Note dated 25.11.2009 was issued but the Petitioner's name was not included therein. The present writ petition was filed in these facts and circumstances.

4. I heard Mr.Abhishek Jenasenan, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr.G.K.Muthukumar, the