The court has the authority to remand an issue back to the respondents for reconsideration based on representations given by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Joint Director of Health Services, Kancheepuram vide Proceedings Ref.No.4164/E6/2006 dated 19.5.06 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner at Rs.8300/- in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500/- in the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II with effect from 24.3.2000 and issue necessary non drawal certificate and consequently fix the petitioner in appropriate scale in Nursing Tutor Grade I.

1. The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Joint Director of Health Services, Kancheepuram vide Proceedings Ref.No.4164/E6/2006 dated 19.5.06 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner at Rs.8300/- in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500/- in the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II with effect from 24.3.2000 and issue necessary non drawal certificate and consequently fix the petitioner in appropriate scale in Nursing Tutor Grade I.

2. The petitioner joined as a Staff Nurse on 30.10.1974. She was under probation for two years and she completed the same on 29.10.1976. Thereafter, the petitioner was conferred with selection grade in the year 1984 and special grade in 1994. Then, the petitioner was appointed as Selection Grade Nurse, which is a promoted post on 05.01.1985.

3. In this context, it is the further case of the petitioner that, as per the orders passed by the fourth respondent dated 22.05.1990, the Selection Grade Staff Nurses were allowed to draw pay to the post of Staff Nurse at Rs.1225/- with effect from 01.04.1986. In this context, the pay of the petitioner has been fixed as Rs.1,220/- per month since 05.01.1985, whereas the pay of a junior to the petitioner one Muthupandiammal, who joined in services as Staff Nurse only on 30.04.1976, was fixed as Rs.1,265/- since 30.04.1986. Like that, in the subsequent promoted post also, the petitioner compared with yet another individual viz., Kanthimathiammal and states that, when the petitioner was promoted as Nursing Tutor Grade II and subsequently as Nursing Tutor Grade I as of October 2006, she was only drawing a sum of Rs.20,065/-, whereas the other individual one Kanthimathiammal, who was working as Nursing Tutor Grade II at the same point of time, allegedly was drawing a sum of Rs.23,600/-.

4. In this context, it is the case of the petitioner that, pointing out this anomaly she had given a representation and the plea of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents by the impugned order. Even after the issuance of the impugned order dated 19.05.2006, further representations were given by the petitioner on 30.06.2006 and 05.07.2006. However, those subsequent representations given by the petitioner were not considered and since the respondents seems to have reiterated their stand through the impugned order, which they passed on 19.05.2006, the petitioner, having no other option, was constrained filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer, challenging the order dated 19.05.2006 and the consequential orders also.

5. Heard Ms.Kaavya Silambanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has reiterated the aforesaid facts and submitted that, certainly there has been pay anomaly between the petitioner and the other individuals, which the petitioner was able to compare, as they were juniors to the petitioner, both at the time of joining the services and also after promotion to the post of Nursing Tutor.

6. Per contra, Mr.Karthikei Balan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that, insofar as the comparison with one Kanthimathiammal is concerned, the amount of Rs.23,600/- claimed to have been drawn by the said individual when she was working as Nursing Tutor Grade II , is a typographical error, as the said Kanthimathiammal was not drawin