2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 10352
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
M.DJEAVELOU – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHER – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
29.01.2026 17.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU Writ Petition No.19174 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.21446 of 2025
1.M.Djeavelou
2.D.Palani ... Petitioners Vs
1.The Union of India, Represented by the Government of Puducherry, through the Secretary to Government of Education, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2.The Director, School Education, Education Department, Puducherry.
3.V.Ravy
4.D.shanthi (Deceased) ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1127 of 2013 and to quash the same and to allow the said O.A.No.1127 of 2013 as prayed for and pass further orders.
For Petitioners : Ms.Kavitha Y for M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates For RR1 & 2 : Mr.R.Syed Mustafa Special Government Pleader (Pondy)
For R3 : Served – No appearance
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)
This writ petition has been filed by petitioners challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 30.04.2024 and to allow the same.
2. Heard Ms.Kavitha Y, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates for the petitioners and Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader (Pondy) appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents.
3. Ms.Kavitha Y, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed as part time Instructors (Librarian) in the Bal Bhavan on part-time wages. She would submit that pursuant to various representations 61 posts were created which included 6 Instructors (Library Science). By order dated 22.06.2009 they were absorbed as part-time staff to Bal Bhavan Instructors (Library Science) with the pay band of Rs.5,200- 20,200 with grade pay of Rs.1,900 against the newly created post. She would submit that as per the recruitment Rules, post of librarian carries a pay scale of Rs.5,500-9000 which was fitted in the revised pay band as per the VIth Pay Commission which is Rs.9,300-3,4800 with grade pay of Rs.4,600.
4. She would submit that by a Government order in G.O.(Ms).No.76, dated 02.12.1998 part-time employees in Bal Bhavan were regularised in the pay scale of Rs.4,500-7,000 which was subsequently replaced as Rs.5,500- 9000. She would submit that Librarians who were working as part-time were also brought under the pay scale of Rs.5,500-9000 with effect from 01.04.2002, on their regularisation in the year 1999. By further orders the regularisation of part-time Instructors have been undertaken and they were all placed under the same pay scale. However, the petitioners were placed in a lower pay scale which is wholly unjustified.
5. She would submit that the current pay band of a school Librarian is Rs.9,300-36,800 with grade pay of Rs.4,600, whereas the petitioners have been granted only a pay scale of Rs.5,200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs.1,900 which is an entry level grade pay. Hence, seeking such relief, the petitioners along with third and fourth respondents had approached the Tribunal and under the impugned order, the Tribunal had rejected their claim by holding that the petitioners were purely absorbed on humanitarian grounds as per the recruitment Rules notified in the year 2008 and therefore, the pay scale is in accordance with the said recruitment Rules, and had further held that the petitioners cannot equate themselves with the part-time employees who were regularised earlier as they have not been borne in service at that relevant point of time.
6. She would submit that the petitioners are employed as Librarians and similarly placed Librarians who are regularised earlier have been benefitted with a higher pay scale and therefore there cannot be any disparity in the pay scale for the similar type of work done by them. She would furth