IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.07.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.No.27802 of 2016 R.Geetha .. Petitioner vs

1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Cuddalore.

2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Cuddalore. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings A.T.Mu.No.4204/A2/2015 dated 25.09.2015, quash the same and consequentially direct the 1^st respondent to step up the scale of pay of the petitioner on par with her junior with all other consequential benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sellapandian For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran Additional Government Pleader ORDER Writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking records relating to an order passed by the first respondent, the District Elementary Education Officer at Cuddalore in proceedings in A.T.MuNo:4204/A2/2015 dated 25.09.2015 and quash the same and consequentially direct the first respondent to step-up the scale of pay of the petitioner on par with her junior.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner R.Geetha stated that she had joined the Tamil Nadu Government Service as Secondary Grade Teacher on 06.10.1988 in the forenoon and was posted at Panchayat Union Middle School at Mudaliar Kuppam at Marakkannan Panchayat Union.

3. The junior about whom she had mentioned in the prayer column is S.Manjula, who also joined as Secondary Grade Teacher on the very same date / 06.10.1988 but in the afternoon and was posted at Kandamangalam Panchayat Union.

4. The probation for both the petitioner and the said S.Manjula were declared on 05.10.1990. The petitioner was then transferred to Cuddalore Panchayat Union on 20.06.1990 and the said S.Manjula was also transferred to Cuddalore Panchayat Union but on 20.07.1995.

5. The petitioner is senior in service to S.Manjula. The only distinguishing factor was that the petitioner completed her B.Ed on 31.03.1993. On that date, consequent to that completion of B.Ed., she was granted one increment as incentive. She then completed her M.Ed., on 01.06.1994 and was granted the second incentive consequent to that particular qualification. Since the petitioner had been granted those two incentives, her scale of pay, which she received, was higher than that of S.Manjula though in all other terms, they were both on the same equal terms.

6. For good measure, S.Manjula also started to study and she completed her B.Ed., on 06.01.2000. She was granted an increment as incentive on that particular date. The difference is that the petitioner was paid incentive on the basis of her basic as on 31.03.1993. This basic pay had increased to S.Manjula had she qualified her B.Ed and, therefore, the incentive which S.Manjula received was higher than the petitioner. This brought about an increase in the pay structure for S.Manjula.

7. S.Manjula also completed her M.A on 26.05.2004. On that particular date, she was granted a second incentive, which again increased her salary. Complaining that her junior S.Manjula was therefore in an advantageous position owing to higher salary being received, the present petition has been filed seeking to step- up the pay of the petitioner to equalize with S.Manjula / her junior.

8. A counter had been filed on behalf of the respondents and it would be appropriate to extract paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the said counter:-

“8. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner now challenged the order passed by the 1^st respondent in proceedings dated 25.09.2015 in Na.Ka.No.4204/A2/2015. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.57 Finance (Pay Cell) dated 28.01.1991 clearly states that “Government also direct that in case, on refixation of pay under rule 4(3) of the Tamilnadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1989 junior happens to draw more pay than senior, then the