Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
V.Chakkaravarthy – Appellant
Versus
Director of School Education – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's service history and pay structure (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. comparison of pay structure between petitioner and junior (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. previous similar judgments on pay anomalies (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
C.V.Karthikeyan, J.
The Writ Petitioner has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking a direction against the respondents to rectify the anomaly of Junior drawing more pay then the petitioner /senior by stepping up the pay of the petitioner on par with the junior as on 06.12.2016 in the cadre of middle school Headmaster and fix the pay of the petitioner as on 06.12.2016 at Rs.90,000/- in the scale of pay and disburse the consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner had give a representation on 09.08.2024.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been contended that the petitioner had been initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 14.12.1984 at Thiruvannamalai District and the service was regularised from the date of appointment. The petitioner was granted selection grade on completion of 10 years and on completion of B.Ed., Degree was granted with first incentive increment and on completion of M.A was a
Pay anomalies must be rectified through stepping up senior salaries to match juniors under similar qualifications, ensuring equal pay for equal work.
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 ....
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
Inconsistent employment statuses disallow consideration for pay stepping up; claims must adhere to specific statutory provisions and conditions.
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....
Seniors are entitled to pay parity with juniors unless the junior's higher pay is due to advance increments or similar exceptions, which were not established in this case.
A government employee senior in service must not receive lesser pay than a junior in the same cadre, and the absence of justifiable reasons for pay disparity constitutes a violation of constitutional....
The pay drawn in the immediate lower post is the basis for rectifying pay anomalies, not initial qualifications at the time of appointment.
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
