IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
A. Manivannan & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 509 of 2017 and W.M.P. No. 23247 of 2021
Decided On : 02-11-2022
Revision of Scale of Pay - Secondary Grade Teacher - Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2009 - G.O.Ms.No.340, dated 26.08.2010 - Fitment Benefit - Anomaly in Fixation of Pay - Equal Pay for Equal Work Principle
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought revision of scale of pay for Secondary Grade Teachers, citing an anomaly in pay fixation between those appointed before and after 01.06.2009. They argued that they were eligible for the revised scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.340, but their representations were not considered by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted, as the fitment benefit was not applicable to appointments made after 01.06.2009, and the financial implication of conceding the prayer would be enormous for the State.
Issues: Anomaly in pay fixation between Secondary Grade Teachers appointed before and after 01.06.2009, eligibility for fitment benefit, and comparison with Central Government Teachers.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter for the executive to discharge, and granting pay parity may result in adverse consequences. It also highlighted the principle of equal pay for equal work and the inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different persons in different organizations.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs, and the petitioners were left open to approach the respondents for any grievances regarding discrimination or otherwise.
ORDER :
The writ on hand has been instituted by the petitioners to direct the respondents to pass orders for revision of scale of pay for the petitioners in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000 as stated in the call letter for Certificate Verification and order of selection with corresponding revised scale of pay as Rs.8370-20,200+2800 GP applying 1.86 method from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential and other attendant benefits including arrears of salary.
2. The writ petitioners were selected and appointed to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers through Teacher Recruitment Board in the year 2009. The present writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that there is an anomaly in the matter of fixation of pay between the Secondary Grade Teachers who were appointed prior to 01.06.2009 and after 01.06.2009.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners mainly contended that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009, implementing the recommendations of the Official Committee for revision of scale of pay and allowances, etc., i.e., under the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2009. As per the said Rules, the existing scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000 as on 01.01.2006 was revised as Rs.5200-20200+2800 Grade Pay. As per the Recruitment Notification, through which the petitioners were appointed after 01.06.2009, they were fixed with a scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000. The Junior Engineers/Agricultural Officers, etc., made a representation to rectify the pay anomaly. The One Man Commission appointed by the Government made certain recommendations and in implementation of the said recommendations, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.340, dated 26.08.2010.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that as per the Government Order, the benefit of revised scale of pay is extended in respect of the employees appointed on or after 01.06.2009 and therefore, the petitioners, who were appointed after 01.06.2009, are eligible for the revised scale of pay. In view of the said anomaly, representations were also made and the same was not considered by the respondents.
5. At the outset, it is contended that the Secondary Grade Teachers appointed before 01.06.2009 are getting basic pay of Rs.8,370/- and a total pay of Rs.11,920/- and the Secondary Grade Teachers appointed after 01.06.2009 are receiving total pay of Rs.8,750/-. In view of the said anomaly, the petitioners have made a representation to rectify the same, which was not considered.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent objected the contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners, by stating that the cut-off date for fixation of pay cannot be questioned, as the cut-off date is necessary to be fixed, for the purpose of implementation of pay scales for various categories in the Government Services. If at all the cut-off date caused certain anomalies, the said anomalies are to be considered only by the Government and in the present case, there is no such anomaly raised, as the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.340 is not applicable to the case of the writ petitioners.
7. In this context, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent have reiterated that in G.O.Ms.No.340, dated 26.08.2010, orders were issued on the recommendation of the One Man Commission to the effect that to rectify the pay anomaly caused to the Junior Assistants recruited from among the Contract Assistants and Agricultural Officers by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission prior to 01.06.2009 and joined in Government Service prior to 01.06.2009 or subsequently due to administrative reasons, by
The fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter for the executive to discharge, and the principle of equal pay for equal work has inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating....
The judgment emphasized the complexity of fixation of pay and the executive's role in determining parity, while also highlighting the principle of equal pay for equal work and the limitations of comp....
The binding nature of an employee's undertaking regarding the recovery of excess pay and the authority of competent authorities to re-fix pay scale based on applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders....
The main legal point established is that teachers are entitled to pay parity with their juniors, irrespective of the union of initial appointment and subsequent transfer.
The court ruled that recovery of higher pay from employees without prior notice and due process violates principles of natural justice, emphasizing the necessity of protecting vested rights.
The court affirmed that teachers should receive pay scales based on qualifications acquired during service, rejecting restrictive interpretations of government resolutions.
The main legal point established is the inapplicability of G.O.Ms.No.216 to the petitioner due to delay and laches, and the determination that the petitioner, working in a private aided school, was o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.