IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN AND G. ARUL MURUGAN, JJ.
The Additional Director General of Police – Appellant
Versus
K. Anbalagan – Respondent
W.A.No.361 of 2025 AND C.M.P.No.2852 of 2025
Decided on : 22-04-2025
(A) Government Order No. 25 - Pay anomaly - The writ Court directed the appellants to step up the pay of the respondent to match that of his junior, Mr. R. Venkatesan, based on the provisions of G.O.25, which aims to rectify pay disparities arising from promotions after selection grade conferral. (Paras 2.1, 2.5, 7, 10)
(B) Pay fixation - The court emphasized that the pay drawn in the immediate lower post should be the determining factor for rectifying pay anomalies, not the initial pay at the time of appointment. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The respondent and Mr. R. Venkatesan were appointed as Grade-II Police Constables on the same date and promoted to Havildars on the same date. The respondent's pay was lower than that of his junior after Venkatesan received increments due to selection grade.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the writ Court's decision to rectify the pay anomaly, stating that the respondent was entitled to stepping up of pay in accordance with G.O.25.
Issues: The main issues were whether the pay anomaly was justified based on initial qualifications and the applicability of G.O.25.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the pay drawn in the immediate lower post is the relevant factor for determining pay parity, rejecting the argument based on initial qualifications.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Aggrieved by the order of the writ Court dated 03.04.2024 made in W.P.No.2674 of 2022 directing the appellants to step up the pay of the respondent on par with the pay drawn by his junior one Mr.R.Venkatesan, the appellants are on appeal.
2. The facts that lead to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
2.1. Both the respondent/writ petitioner and one Mr.R.Venkatesan were appointed as Grade-II Police Constables on the same date i.e., 17.03.1986. They were promoted as Havildars on 18.03.1994. On the date of promotion as Havildars, the scales of pay of both Mr.R.Venkatesan and the respondent were one and the same. Thereafter, both of them were promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 18.03.2003 and their pay was fixed at Rs.5,300/- at the same level. Both of them were qualified for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police on 01.01.2011.
2.2. While the respondent accepted the said promotion and became an Inspector with effect from 01.01.2011, the junior viz., Mr.R.Venkatesan relinquished his promotion and remained as a Sub-Inspector. In the rank of Sub-Inspector, Mr.R.Venkatesan was moved to Selection Grade on 18.03.2013, which resulted in two increments being granted to him and his pay was fixed at Rs.20,470/- with effect from 18.03.2013.
2.3. The pay of the respondent who was holding a higher post as on 18.03.2013, remained as Rs.20,260/-, i.e., 210 rupees lesser than the pay drawn by his junior who was in the lower post, as on that date. Subsequently, Mr.R.Venkatesan was promoted as Inspector on 17.07.2017, on which date, his pay was fixed at Rs.64,300/-. The said Venkatesan took voluntary retirement on 31.01.2018, on which date, his basic pay was Rs.64,300/-. The respondent retired by superannuation on 31.10.2017 and his last drawn pay was Rs.60,600/-
2.4. Finding that there was an anomaly in his pay, the respondent sought clarification of the anomaly as per G.O.(Ms.)No.25 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.IV) Department, dated 23.03.2015 (in short “G.O.25”). His request was rejected on the ground that his junior viz., Mr.R.Venkatesan had higher qualification at the time of his appointment viz., 10th standard pass. Whereas, the respondent had passed only 8th standard and therefore, the said Venkatesan was granted a higher pay and as such, there is no anomaly.
2.5. The writ Court rejected the claim of the appellants and concluded that the respondent would be entitled to a higher pay equal to that of Mr.R.Venkatesan and allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to rectify the anomaly and fix the pay of the respondent on par with that of his junior Mr.R.Venkatesan with effect from 17.07.2017. The consequential benefits of revision of pension was also granted.
3. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the anomaly arose because of the fact that Mr.R.Venkatesan was given a higher pay even at the time of his initial appointment, in view of the fact that he had better qualification viz., 10th standard pass, whereas, the respondent was only an 8th standard pass.
4. Contending contra, Mr.A.R.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that as per G.O.25, it is the pay which was drawn by the junior in the cadre which both the junior and senior held before promotion should alone be taken into account and not the pay that was fixed at the time of entry into service as Police Constable Grade-II. The learned counsel would also draw our attention to the concluding portion of G.O.25 which reads as follows:
“5. The Government direct that in cases where Government servants who have been appointed / promoted to higher posts without moving to Selection Grade /Special Grade in the lower post and there by happen to draw less pay than their junior who are appointed / promoted to the higher posts after moving to the Selection Grade / Special Grade of the lower post, in the revised scales of pay
The pay drawn in the immediate lower post is the basis for rectifying pay anomalies, not initial qualifications at the time of appointment.
The main legal point established is that a senior cannot be paid lesser salary than the junior, and the department is bound to step up the pay of the senior on par with his junior for the purpose of ....
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....
Pay anomalies must be rectified through stepping up senior salaries to match juniors under similar qualifications, ensuring equal pay for equal work.
Pay anomaly where senior draws less than junior due to advanced increments for Ph.D. at different pay scales must be rectified by stepping up senior's pay from date anomaly arose, per Supreme Court p....
The court established that pay anomalies must be corrected retrospectively to uphold the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Senior's pay must be stepped up to match junior's in same cadre/identical posts when anomaly arises from FR 22(I)(a)(1) application and pay fixation options, per DOP&T guidelines.
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.