Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
J. Jones Thilaga Rajakumari and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The District Educational Officer, Tuticorin and Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) Nos. 10371, 10375 of 2020
Decided On : 26-03-2024
Writ Petition - Pay Discrepancy - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - [Selection Grade, Special Grade, Fundamental Rules, Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009] - The court considered the issue of pay discrepancy between petitioners and their junior, and the applicability of various rules and government orders in determining the entitlement to stepping up of pay. The court held that the petitioners and their junior were working in different cadres and thus not entitled to claim stepping up of pay based on the junior's higher pay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers, sought stepping up of their pay to match that of their junior, who was drawing higher pay. The court considered the basis for the petitioners' claim and the relevant rules and government orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners and their junior were working in different cadres, and thus the question of stepping up of pay did not arise. The court also noted that the pay fixation takes into consideration the nature of duties and responsibilities of the post, and without specific rules for rectifying such situations, interference was not warranted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to claim stepping up of pay to match that of their junior, who was working in a different cadre.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the entitlement to stepping up of pay arises only when the junior is working in the same cadre as the senior, and that without specific rules for rectifying pay discrepancies, interference on the grounds of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India was not justified.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the writ petitions, finding no error or illegality in the impugned orders. No costs were awarded.
ORDER :
Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 653/a1/2019, dated 27.08.2019 and quash the same and direct the respondents to step up the scale of pay of the petitioners with effect from the date on which her junior was given higher scale of pay with all consequential benefits.
1. Heard Mr. V. Panneer Selvam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Sasikumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.
2. The issue that arise for consideration in these two writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos. 10371 and 10375 of 2020 were initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers on 11.09.1989 and 21.08.1992 respectively and on completion of 10 years of service in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher, they were granted Selection Grade and on acquiring certain higher qualifications, they were also granted incentive increments for such higher qualifications. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant on 01.01.2008 and they have been continuing in the said post as on date. While so, the petitioners, on coming to know that their junior Tmt. S. Umadevi, who was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 21.07.1995, has been drawing higher pay than the petitioners herein, made a claim for stepping up of their pay on par with the said junior. The said claim of the petitioners was considered by Respondent No. 1 and their claim was rejected by issuing the impugned proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 653/a1/2019, dated 27.08.2019.
4. According to the petitioners, the said junior S. Umadevi has been continuing in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher for more than 20 years and hence, she was granted Selection Grade and Special Grade scales and also the incentive increments for the higher qualifications acquired by her. On implementation of VIII Pay Commission, the pay of the petitioners as well as the said S. Umadevi were revised and since then the said Umadevi is stated to be drawing higher pay than the petitioners.
5. Admittedly, the said S. Umadevi is still continuing in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The basis for the petitioners to make a claim for stepping up of their pay is that their junior is drawing higher pay than the petitioners. In order to claim seniority over the said S. Umadevi, the petitioners should also be in the same cadre in which the said Umadevi is working. It is only when the petitioners and the said Umadevi are in the same cadre, the question of inter se seniority among them would arise. While admittedly they are working in different cadres, the question of the petitioners comparing themselves with the said S. Umadevi is totally baseless. No doubt, the said S. Umadevi was appointed subsequent to the petitioners in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher. It is because of her continuance in the same post for more than 20 years, she was granted Selection Grade and Special Grade pay in the same cadre together with incentive increments for the higher qualifications acquired by her. Whereas the petitioners, on completion of 10 years of service, acquired the Selection Grade pay and then were promoted to the higher post of B.T. Assistant and they have been working in the said post. Therefore, there cannot be any comparison between the petitioners and the so-called junior S. Umadevi.
6. The question of stepping up of pay of senior on par with junior would arise only in case if the junior working in the same cadre as that of the senior is drawing more pay for whatever be the reason, that too, in terms of the Fundamental Rules and various Government Orders issued from time to time. But in the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioners that they a
The entitlement to stepping up of pay arises only when the junior is working in the same cadre as the senior, and without specific rules for rectifying pay discrepancies, interference on the grounds ....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Government Order No.25 P & AR Department dated 23.03.2015 to rectify pay anomalies between seniors and ju....
The court established that the petitioner cannot claim stepping up of pay under Fundamental Rule 27(2) due to the anomaly in pay arising from the junior being promoted to a different post and thereaf....
In order to seek stepping up of pay on par with a junior, the senior must establish that both the senior and junior are working in the same cadre.
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.
Pay anomalies must be rectified through stepping up senior salaries to match juniors under similar qualifications, ensuring equal pay for equal work.
Entitlement of a senior employee to stepping up of pay equal to that of a junior employee, conditions for stepping up of pay, and the applicability of various judgments related to equal pay for equal....
Point of Law : Reasoning of the High Court was erroneous and the appellant No.1 was also entitled to the same benefits of pay parity with Shri Shori as has been granted to the appellant No.2
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
