ORDER :

Questioning the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the first respondent and the consequential order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the fourth respondent, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

2. The facts of the case as averred in the writ petition are as follows:

2.1 The petitioner was appointed as Typist in the Government Data Centre by order dated 03.07.1987 through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and she joined duty on 06.07.1987 and was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.610-730-955-1075 with effect from the date of joining. She completed the period of probation on 05.07.1989 and her services were regularised in the post of Typist with effect from 06.07.1987. The petitioner was re-designated as Junior Assistant and placed in the scale of pay of Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660 by order dated 20.12.1990 and she joined as such on 08.01.1991 in the office of the third respondent. Subsequently, she was promoted as Assistant on 13.02.1992.

2.2 The petitioner was once again selected by TNPSC in Group-IV Services through the examination held in 1989 for appointment as Typist in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service and was allotted to the Finance Department by order dated 11.03.1992. Pursuant to the same, she was relieved from the third respondent's office on 23.04.1992 so as to take up appointment as Typist in the Finance Department of the Secretariat. However, she was relieved from the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service on the Afternoon of 29.09.1992 for re-appointment as Assistant in the Government Data Centre, the third respondent herein, by order dated 29.09.1992.

2.3 It is the grievance of the petitioner that at the time of working in the Secretariat, all employees working in her parent department were granted 5% personal pay by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.664 Finance (PC) Department, dated 24.08.1992. But the petitioner was denied the said benefit. Her representation seeking the said claim was also rejected.

2.4 According to the petitioner, she was promoted as Supervisor Grade II from Selection Grade Assistant and joined duty as such on 11.11.2011 with a pay of Rs.13980+4800 GP in the scale of pay of PB2 9300-34800+4800 (GP), whereas her junior one M.Edison who was promoted as Supervisor Grade-II from Special Grade Assistant, was placed in the pay of Rs.15140+4300 GP on 11.06.2012.

2.5 The petitioner made a representation to the third respondent detailing about the pay anomaly between her and the said M.Edison, and due to the same, her pay was stepped up on par with that of her junior with effect from 01.07.2012 at Rs.16320+4800 in the scale of pay of Rs.9300- 34800+4800 GP in accordance with Ruling 2 of Fundamental Rule 22-B. After doing this exercise, the third respondent sent the papers to the first respondent for ratification, but the same was rejected by order dated 23.07.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a review petition on 12.10.2015, which was also rejected on 18.01.2016 by the first respondent, without going into the details of her representations. On the basis of this order, the fourth respondent has passed an order on 24.02.2016 cancelling the stepping up of the petitioner's pay on par with that of her junior M.Edison, with a further direction to recover an amount of Rs.1,56,001/- in one lump sum from the petitioner, which amount has accrued from excess pay done.

With the above background, the present writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the anomaly of junior M.Edison drawing more pay than the senior, i.e., the petitioner, happened due to the petitioner getting promotion from Selection Grade of the lower post, without stepping into Special Grade, and the junior M.Edison after stepping into the Special Grade of the lower post before getting promotion, attracts Ruling 2 of the Fundamental Rules 22-B, which provides that in such cases, the pay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped upto a figure equal to the pay fi