IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P.Nos.50305 & 50306 of 2025 A.Arunachalam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE(PAY CELL)DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-600 009

2.THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-600 009

3.THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHENNAI-600 006

4.THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A & E), CHENNAI-600 018

5.THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, POLUR, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceeding of the 2nd respondent dated 17.02.2020 in letter No.2021/SE7(1)/2020-1, quash the same and further direction, directing the respondents to fix the pay and all the consequential benefits by applying Rule 4(iii) of the Tamilnadu Revised scale of pay Rules

2009.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanakumar For Respondents For R1 : Mr.Azizullah Khan, Government Advocate For R2 to5 : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru, Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order of the

2nd respondent dated 17.02.2020 in letter No.2021/SE7(1)/2020-1 and consequently to direct the respondents to fix the pay and all the consequential benefits by applying Rule 4(iii) of the Tamilnadu Revised scale of pay Rules 2009.

2. The issue involved in this writ petition has already been dealt with by this Court in WP.no.11380 of 2025 and this Court by order dated 17.11.2025, dismissed the writ petition. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

“9. In the similar matter, the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in a batch of Writ Petition in W.P.No.15570 of 2021 etc., by an order 29.02.2024 held that, in view of the real import of Rule 4(1)(iii) of the Rules read with Government Letter No.51082/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated

15.09.2010 along with the additional fitment table No.15, the petitioners in that batch are entitled to the relief as prayed. Based on the said order, this Court also allowed one of the Writ Petitions filed by the vocational teacher in W.P.No.28871 of 2023 by an order dated 01.08.2024, stating that the Rule does not distinguish the pre-existing pay scales whether ordinary or selection grade. The government letter dated 08.11.2010 is clear that the Rule does not distinguish the originally scale of pay or selection grade pay scale in any manner.

10. But the respondents preferred Writ Appeals as against the order passed by this Court and the Madurai Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.468 of 2025 etc., by the common judgment dated 29.08.2025, allowed all the Writ Appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:-

“9.When the pay commission recommendations were enforced, it gave rise to certain anomalies. To examine the same, the State Government constituted a One Man Commission vide G.O.(Ms)No.449 Fiance Department dated 09.09.2009. The One Man Commission went into the anomalies and offered its recommendations in respect of various departments.

Accepting the said recommendations, the government issued a series of government orders (ie., G.O. (Ms)No.254 Finance Department dated 26.08.2010 to G.O.(Ms)No.340 Finance Department dated 26.08.2010). For instance, G.O.(Ms)No.254 dated 26.08.2010 pertained to the post of Steno-Typist Grade 1. G.O. (Ms)No.255 dated 26.08.2010 pertained to Superintendent in Governance Household. G.O. (Ms)No.273 dated 26.08.2010 pertained to the post of Superintendent of Physical and Training Officer in the department of Employment and Training. Thus, each of the 87 government orders pertained to either a post following under common category or to a particular post in a particul