SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4376

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
S. Ramachandran - Respondent 
W.A.(MD) No.6 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.132 and 11441 of 2023
Decided On : 28-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. P. Veerakathiravan, Addl. Advocate General, Assisted by Mr. K.S. Selvaganesan, Addl. Government Pleader.
For the Respondent: Mr. B. Saravanan, Senior Counsel, Assisted by Mr. C. Jeganathan.

The court ruled that the pay parity rule does not apply when the senior and junior are not in the same lower post, thus rejecting the claim for stepping up pay.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Public Health Subordinate Service Rules - Rule 22(b) Rulings (2) - Pay disparity between senior and junior Health Inspectors - The petitioner, a senior Health Inspector, sought equal pay with his junior, who was receiving a higher salary. The court directed the authorities to consider the representations made by the petitioner regarding pay parity. However, the subsequent rejection of the request was challenged in a writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The court found that the petitioner and his junior were not in the same lower post and thus the application of the pay parity rule was erroneous. (Paras 4, 6, 7, 8)

(B) Equality before law - Article 16 of the Constitution of India - The court noted that the petitioner’s claim of pay disparity did not constitute a valid case for stepping up pay, as the necessary conditions for parity were not met. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Health Inspector Grade I, claimed that his junior was receiving a higher pay despite being his subordinate. He filed representations that were not addressed, leading to a writ petition. The learned Single Judge initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the appeal contested the application of the relevant rules.

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's order was found to be erroneous as the petitioner and his junior were not in the same cadre at the time of their appointments.

Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner and his junior were in the same cadre and the applicability of the pay parity rule.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the learned Single Judge erred in applying the pay parity rule, as the petitioner and his junior were not in the same lower post and did not draw the same pay.

Result: The order impugned in the writ appeal is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

(G.R. Swaminathan, J.)

Heard the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned senior counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner.

2.The respondent / Ramachandran who is working as Health Inspector Grade I complained that his junior / Mohamed Ameen who is working as Health Inspector Grade I is getting more pay and that therefore, his pay should be stepped up. The respondent herein submitted representations dated 15.04.2015 and 23.09.2019. Since they were not considered, he filed W.P.(MD)No.21767 of 2019. The writ petition was disposed of on 16.10.2019 in the following terms:-

“3.According to the petitioner, one Leprosy Inspector / Health Inspector Grade I-B, by name, Mohammed Ameen, working under the second respondent, bearing seniority No. 4191, as per the revised seniority list published by the second respondent, was getting his pay of Rs.7100/- with effect from 01.09.1998 under the Special Grade Health Inspector Grade-I pay of Rs.5900-200-9900, vide proceedings of the Deputy Director of Medical (Leprosy) Tirunelveli, dated 24.11.2014. The petitioner's seniority number in the list is 2181 and he is the senior to the said Mohammed Ameen. His junior is getting higher pay and arrears of increased allowances. Therefore, the petitioner has sent representations dated 15.04.2015 and 23.09.2019 to refix his scale of pay on par with his juniors, who were working as Leprosy Inspectors and to redesignate as Health Inspector Grade-I. However, till date, no order has been passed thereon. Hence, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition.

4.Considering the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, without deciding the issues on merits and the delay in sending the representations, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 15.04.2015 and 23.09.2019 on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

3.Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai - 6 vide order dated 30.01.2020 rejected the petitioner's request for stepping up pay. Questioning the same, the respondent filed W.P.(MD)No.6692 of 2020. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.06.2022 in the following terms:-

“4.In G.O.(D).No.917, Health and Family Welfare (L1) Department, dated 11.09.2014, Rule 10(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Subordinate Service Rules came to be amended, whereby the scale of pay for the Leprosy Inspector was revised at Rs.4500-7000. Thus, when the post of Health Inspector Grade I B was redesignated as Health Inspector Grade I, both the petitioners, as well as his junior viz., Mr.Mohammed Ameen were brought under the same scale of pay at Rs.4500-125-7000.

5.Admittedly, the petitioner is senior to Mohammed Ameen. Thus, there appears to be a parity in the pay scale with effect from 1997, whereby his junior was drawing a higher scale than the petitioner herein. By applying Rule 22B Rulings (2) of the Fundamental Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government, it can be said that since the re-designation of the post from Health Inspector Grade I B to Health Inspector Grade-I, both the petitioner as well as his junior would be deemed to be in the same cadre and in the same post from 01.08.1997 onwards.

6.The respondents seems to have misconstrued the facts and have made an attempt to compare the earlier cadre held by both the petitioner and his junior. What requires to be considered here is, after the integration of Health Inspector Grade I B as Health Inspector Grade -I, which post the petitioner was also holding at that point of time, there cannot be any parity in the pay scale between the senior and junior, since both were holding the post of Health Inspector Grade-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top