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.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent herein in Na.Ka.No. 16907/E1/2016 dated 11.08.2016 and consequential impugned order of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.494/A2/15 dated 23.08.2016 and quash the same.)

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

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 27.09.1996 in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Therku Puthuvayal, Thirumayam Union, Pudukkottai District. On 18.03.1997, he was transferred to Natham Union, Dindigul District. On 30.06.2006, he was promoted as Headmaster in Panchayat Union Primary School, Pillayar Natampudur, Natham Union, Dindigul District. The scale of pay for the post of Primary School Headmaster in VI-Pay Commission is Rs.9,300-34,800-4,800. One Mrs.P.Mallika was appointed on 21.07.1997, i.e., junior to the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in Natham Union and after completion of 10 years of service, she was awarded Selection Grade. Subsequently, she was promoted as Primary School Headmaster. By virtue of award in Selection Grade pay in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher post, the said Mrs.P.Malliga is getting higher pay than the petitioner in the cadre of Primary School Headmaster.

3. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the same, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents requesting to re-fix the scale of pay on par with that of his junior. On 05.08.2015, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings rectifying the pay parity and re-fixed the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior by following Rule 5(3) and Rule 7(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009 and the clarifications issued by the Government. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioner has been fixed on par with his junior with effect from the date on which the difference occurred, i.e., 25.07.2007.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the 1st respondent herein without applying his mind or without referring earlier G.O.Ms.No.710, dated 23.09.1994 or the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009 and other relevant Government Orders, issued the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.16907/E1/2016, dated 11.08.2016 stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 02.04.1990, the District Elementary Educational Officer is the competent authority to rectify the pay parity between the senior and junior and each Panchayat Union is a separate union and pay parity between the senior and junior may be set right by stepping up on par with junior by comparing the person who has worked in the union only. Based on the directions of the 1st respondent, without application of mind or without affording opportunity to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent herein issued the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.494/A2/15, dated 23.08.2016 cancelling the pay fixation order and directed to recover the excess amount and refixation of salary. Under these circumstances, being left with no other option, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate basing on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 27.09.1996 in Panchayat Union Elementary School, Therku Puduvayal, Thirumayam Union, Pudukkottai District. Then he was tranferred to the present Natham Union on 18.03.1997. The learned Government Advocate contends that the petitioner cannot compare a person, who has been appointed in a separate unit on appointment. The Teachers appointed in the same union can get the benefit of fixation of pay on par with their juniors. The concept of fixation of pay on par with the juniors does not apply to those who have