Inaction of the respondents to rectify a pay anomaly, despite accepting the petitioner's claim, was held to be illegal and arbitrary, causing severe financial loss to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the third respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.073422/L/E4/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and the consequent impugned order of the first respondent herein in Lr.No.44562/Finance (CMPC) Department/2015-2 dated 23.12.2015 quash the same in so far as allowing rectification of pay anomaly of the petitioner from 01.01.2011 and consequently direct the sixth respondent herein to rectify the pay anomaly of the petitioner with effect from 30.05.2007, the date from which junior of the petitioned is drawing higher pay.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed as Block Resource Teacher Educator by proceedings of the fourth respondent as per rank No.214/TRB 2nd Batch/2002-2003 and joined service on 28.03.2003 in Singampunari Block, Sivagangai District. The service of the petitioner was regularised on 28.03.2003 and subsequently, his probation was approved on 27.03.2005 by the fifth respondent. Thereafter, he was transferred on 14.07.2009 and posted as B.T. Assistant (Maths) in the High School, Ulagampatti, Sivagangai District. The petitioner was given selection grade on 28.03.2013 in the post of B.T. Assistant. Subsequently, he was put in 12 years of continuous and clean service and maintaining clean records of service even without any adverse remarks.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of joining of service, since the petitioner secured PG degree in M.Sc., (Maths), he was granted one incentive of Rs.175/- + Rs.175/- =Rs.350/- as per V Pay Commission Recommendation. One L.Muthukannu with rank No.235/TRB. 2nd Batch/2002-2003 is working as B.T. Assistant (Maths) under the District Educational Officer, Trichy, who is junior to the petitioner and also joined service on 28.03.2003. The petitioner was drawing higher salary than his Junior L.Muthukannu in view of incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification as per the VI Pay Commission Recommendation. Now his junior is getting more pay than the petitioner from 30.05.2007 in the post in which initial appointment of the petitioner and his junior i.e., L.Muthukannu, is one and the same and the post held by them is also one and the same.

4. The learned counsel further submits that while so, the junior of the petitioner, had equal qualification and posting from the date of appointment, all of a sudden, from 30.05.2007 he has been drawing a higher pay of Rs.17,440/- than the petitioner i.e. Rs.17,130/- and during the last year from 01.01.2013, his junior has been drawing his salary at Rs.20,850/- as and when the petitioner is getting salary at Rs.20,480/-. The petitioner made a representation to the sixth respondent on 16.04.2005 bringing to their notice about the pay anomaly prevailing to the petitioner and his junior from 30.05.2007. As the respondents failed to consider the representation of the petitioner, W.P.(MD)No.10812 of 2015 was filed before this Court. By order, dated 24.06.2015, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent passed the impugned order, dated 23.12.2015 consequent to the impugned order, dated 10.12.2015 passed by the third respondent.

5. The learned counsel would further submit that the respondents considered the claim of the petitioner positively as per the clarification issued in Clause-16 of the Government Letter No. 45113/Finance (Pay Section) Department/2009-1, Finance Department, dated 17.08.2009 and proceedings issued by the Director of School Education.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the respond