BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA W.A.(MD)No.2922 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.16554 of 2025

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

3.The Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai.

4.The Joint Director (Vocational), Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai-600 006.

5.The Chief Educational Officer, Tenkasi Main Bus Stand, Tenkasi District.

6.The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General (A & E), 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. ... Appellants Vs.

S.Joseph Alphonse Raj ...Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in WP(MD).No.17503 of 2024 dated

30.07.2024 and to set aside the same.

For Appellant : Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : No Appearance

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

Respondent is served and description is printed in the cause list. However, none appears on behalf of the respondent.

2.Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the appellants, circulates a copy of the order passed in W.A.(MD)No.2567 of 2025 dated27.11.2025, wherein we have had an occasion to consider the identical issue regarding fitment table as arisen in the present matter and the order reads as follows:

“2.Both the learned counsel would accede to the position that the very issue relating to applicability of Tamil Nadu Revision of Scales of Pay Rules, 2009 to vocational Instructors, has been decided by this Court in a batch of cases in W.A.(MD)No.468 of 2025 and batch on 29.08.2025 in favour of the State. The operative portion of that order is as follows:-

“12.We cannot approve the aforesaid order made in W.P.No.15570 of 2021. This is for more than one reason. Firstly, the learned Single Judge had failed to note that additional fitment table 15 can be applied only if it is shown that the pay band of the post in question had been elevated from one pay band to another pay band on account of implementation of the recommendations of the One Man Commission. Nowhere such a finding has been given. Secondly, according to the learned Single Judge, if Rule 4(1)(iii) is applied in its real sense, additional fitment table 15 has to be applied to the post of Vocational Instructors also. This is incorrect. There is is no logical basis for linking Rule

4(1)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2009 with the additional fitment tables annexed to government letter dated 15.09.2010. Thirdly, matters relating to pay fixation cannot be adjudicated by the Writ Courts since they have large financial implications. They are essentially policy decisions to be taken by the government.

13.Not all Vocational Instructors were getting the same pay as on

01.01.2006. Their pay was revised by applying the multiplying their existing basic pay as on 01.01.2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10. As per Rule 4(1)(ii), if the minimum of the revised pay band / pay scale is more than the amount arrived at as per the method mentioned above, it shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised pay band / pay scale. The consequence of adopting this method was that those who were getting higher pay as on 01.01.2006 and those who were getting lesser pay in the post of Vocational Instructors got bunched and were placed at the same level. This had to be necessarily set right. Rule 4(1)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2009 provided the solution. Since the Vocational Instructors placed their grievances complaining of anomalies, the Pay Grievance Cell was constituted under G.O.(Ms)No.123 Finance Department dated 10.04.20