An inter partes judgment that has attained finality cannot be reopened or ignored by the parties through collateral proceedings or by relying on subsequent conflicting precedents or larger bench decisions, as the principle of judicial finality binds the parties to the original order.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

1.The present Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.13535 of 2021 dated 23.06.2022 in and by which the learned Single Judge quashed the order passed by the 4^th respondent and directed the authorities to refix the petitioner's salary on the basis of her last drawn pay at R.C.Primary School, C.K.Mangalam, Ramanathapuram District.

2.For convenience sake, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the learned Single Judge.

3(a).The brief facts which are relevant to the disposal of the present Writ Appeal are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade Assistant in R.C.Primary School, Sivagangai District. Thereafter, through a Teachers Recruitment Board recruitment, she was selected as a Secondary Grade Teacher, and was appointed in the Panchayat Union School vide order dated 01.09.2009. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner joined the 6^th respondent School on 29.07.2009. According to the petitioner, her last drawn pay in the 5^th respondent School was Rs.14,160/-, whereas after joining 6^th respondent School a lesser pay was fixed at Rs.12,260/-. It is the submission of the petitioner that there is no difference between the services rendered in 5^th respondent School and 6^th respondent School, except for the fact that the 5^th respondent School was an aided School.

3(b).It is the contention of the petitioner that, vide G.O.Ms.No.1072 dated 31.10.1986, there was an amendment to the Fundamental Rules to Rule 26(a) by and in which the last drawn pay was protected to those who joined from other services. Accordingly, when the petitioner requested that her pay be refixed at par with her last drawn pay, the same was rejected vide order dated 07.12.2015. Subsequently, the same was challenged in WP.No.452 of 2016. In the above writ petition, this Court vide order dated 27.11.2019 quashed the rejection order dated 07.12.2015 and directed the authorities to refix the pay. Even after the above positive direction, the respondent passed the impugned rejection order dated 05.10.2020. Aggrieved thereby, when the petitioner preferred the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order dated 23.06.2022, quashed the rejection order and directed them to refix the pay. Not satisfied with the above order, the Authorities have preferred the present Writ Appeal.

4.Heard Mr.Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Isaac Chambers is appearing for the first respondent.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would vehemently submit that the parity claimed by the petitioner based upon the earlier judgment in WA(MD).No.627 of 2022 dated 15.07.2022 does not apply to the present facts of this case. It is the further submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the service rendered by the petitioner in the private Management will not be regulated as per the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service Rules. It is also the further submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the services rendered by the petitioner in the 5^th respondent School are altogether different from the Government service. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the fundamental Rule 26 will have no application to the present case, as the above services are two different services. It is also the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that there is a Division Bench Order in their favour in WA (MD) No.627 of 2022 dated 15.07.2022, but the learned Single Judge did not consid