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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73947

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mrs Justice N. MALA
P.Venkatachalam – Appellant
Versus
The Director of Elementary – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.09.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA W.P.No.20159 of 2016 and MP.Nos.17344 & 17345 of 2016 P. Venkatachalam ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Director of Elementary Education College Road, Chennai 600 006.

2. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

3. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Avinasi Panchayat Union, Avinasi, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

4. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Avinasi Panchayat Union, Avinasi, Tiruppur District, Tirupur. .... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in relation to the proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.2740/A5/2014 dated 03.12.2014 and in Na.Ka.No.082/A1/15 dated 08.02.2016 respectively and quash the same and issue consequential direction to the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner at Rs.26,480/- as on 30.12.2010 with consequential benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saseetharan For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabhakaran Government Advocate

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in relation to the proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.2740/A5/2014 dated 03.12.2014 and in Na.Ka.No.082/A1/15 dated 08.02.2016 respectively and quash the same and issue consequential direction to the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner at Rs.26,480/- as on 30.12.2010 with consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 16.12.1983 at Panchayat Union Primary School, Kerudamuthoor in Pongaloor Panchayat Union, Coimbatore District. Thereafter, he was transferred to Avinasi Panchayat Union in the same District and was promoted as Primary School Headmaster on 05.06.2002, and then promoted as Middle School Headmaster and posted at Panchayat Union Middle School, Peranayakkanpudur, Avinasi Panchayat Union, Tiruppur District. Subsequently, while he was working as Middle School, Headmaster he retired from service on 31.05.2015, on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner as on 30.12.2010 his junior's pay was fixed at Rs.23,530/-, whereas he was paid Rs.21,970/-. The anomoly arose due to the fact that the junior was granted incentive increment at the rate of 3% of the basic pay for higher qualification in the revised scales of pay. Therefore a pay anomoly arose on 30.12.2010 and from 30.12.2010 his junior got more pay than him. On the basis of his representation for rectification of pay anomoly, the District Elementary Educational Officer by his order dated 25.04.2014 stepped up his pay to the level of his junior and fixed his pay at Rs.26,480/- as on 30.10.2010 and further granted monetary benefits with effect from 01.01.2011. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer by his proceedings dated 13.06.2014 passed consequential orders rectifying pay anomoly. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruppur district by his order dated 03.12.2014 cancelled the order dated 25.04.2014 under which his pay was stepped up to the level of his junior on the ground that his junior was granted higher pay wrongly. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer by the proceedings dated 06.02.2015 revised his earlier order dated 13.06.2014 on the ground that the order rectifying the pay anomoly was cancelled and revised his pay and fixed the same as on 30.12.2010 as per the original pay. In both the orders a direction for refund of the alleged excess sum in one lump sum were issued. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter and stated that the petitioner could not claim upgradation of pay on par with his junior as his junior was wrongly paid. It was submitted that the Assistant Elementary E

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