Back
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
G. S. T. Joodhith Prince – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Environment, Climate Change and Forests (FR. 8) Department, Fort ST. George, – Respondent
ORDER :
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for pay revision on par with Government employees.
2. The petitioner is employed as a Junior Drafting Officer in the office of the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner that his scale of pay has not been fixed on par with the Government servants. He made a representation to the second respondent seeking to fix his scale of pay on par with the Government servants which has been rejected as seen from the impugned order dated 20.04.2021.
3. The second respondent has stated in the impugned order that the petitioner's representation was forwarded to the first respondent who has not approved the request of the petitioner and therefore under the impugned order the request of the petitioner has been rejected.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 23.12.2021 passed in W.A.Nos.484 of 2014 and 2183 of 2021 in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government Vs. S.Karunanithi and M/s.Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited [second respondent herei
The court affirmed that employees of the Corporation are entitled to pay and allowances on par with State Government employees as per Rule 34, emphasizing the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Government approval is mandatory for extending pay scales to Corporation employees, as per established directives, negating routine claims for pay parity with State employees.
The court established that pay scales for employees in different Nagarpalikas cannot be equated due to distinct financial and regulatory frameworks governing each entity.
Members of the Petitioner Association ought to have been treated equally w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In view of this fact, we are of the opinion that the end of justice would be served if the respondents are di....
The State of Himachal Pradesh is not mandated to follow pay scales set by another State; employer discretion in service conditions is reaffirmed.
The court ruled that pay fixation must adhere to applicable rules, and claims for parity must consider distinct recruitment modes.
The court affirmed that the pay scale adjustments for employees based on completion of service are lawful and maintain distinctions made by prior government resolutions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioners to the specific pay scale as per the circular dated 25.1.1992, and the requirement for the respondents to implem....
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....
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
