Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4375 (MAD)

R. Pugazhendhi v. Director of School Education

2014-11-21

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1035 of 2003. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.10149 of 2006. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Tamil Pandit Grade I through Employment Exchange, by proceedings dated 19.12.1979 of the Joint Director of School Education (Personnel) Chennai. He joined duty on 08.01.1980 at Government High School, Killukottai. At the time of filing of the Original Application, he was working as Tamil Pandit, Grade I at Government Higher Secondary School, Jayankondam. 3. According to the petitioner, one S.Paramasivam was also appointed as Tamil Pandit Grade I by the same proceedings, dated 19.12.1979 of the Joint Director of School Education (Personnel) Chennai. In the said appointment order, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.10 and the said S.Paramasivam was placed at Sl.No.27. They were granted same scale of pay. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner acquired M.A. Degree on 19.05.1982 and B.Ed Degree on 31.12.1983 and he was granted incentive increments with effect from 19.05.1982 and 31.12.1983 respectively for acquiring the said higher qualifications. In view of the same, the petitioner was receiving more salary than S.Paramasivam, though they were appointed on the same day. 5. While so, S.Paramasivam was also granted similar incentive increments for passing B.Ed Degree on 16.03.1990 and M.A.Degree on 31.05.1992, while he was working in the Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.1640 - 2900 in the same post. At this stage, S.Paramasivam began to draw Rs.1820/- with effect from 01.01.1991 in the aforesaid scale of pay while the petitioner was drawing Rs.1810 as on that date. The said anomaly has been continuing and as on 01.01.2002, the petitioner was drawing Rs.8650/- and Paramasivam was drawing Rs.8850/-. 6. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent for stepping up of the pay on par with his junior viz., Paramasivam, who is drawing more pay with effect from 01.01.1991. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent by the impugned order dated 12.09.2002. 7. The reason given in the impugned order is that Paramasivam is not junior to the petitioner as he also joined on the same date on which the petitioner joined. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim parity with Paramasivam. Questioning the aforesaid order dated 12.09.2002, the petitioner has filed this Original Application. 8. A reply affidavit is filed seeking to sustain the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim parity with Paramasivam. Questioning the aforesaid order dated 12.09.2002, the petitioner has filed this Original Application. 8. A reply affidavit is filed seeking to sustain the impugned order. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that both of them were appointed on the same day. The serial number of Paramasivam is 2 and the serial number of the petitioner is 13. In the reply affidavit, it is averred that while the petitioner received incentive increments for acquiring higher qualification during 1982-83, Paramasivam got his incentive increments in 1990 and 1992 and this led to fixation of higher pay to Paramasivam. 9. Heard both sides. 10. In my view, the principle that senior cannot be fixed in a pay lower than the scale of pay of a junior will also apply to the persons who are appointed on the same day to the same post in the same scale of pay. In the case on hand, the petitioner and Paramasivam were appointed on the same date to a particular post in a particular scale of pay. Subsequently, one of them cannot be paid higher pay, except in the case, where, a person is granted higher pay pursuant to passing of departmental exam or acquiring higher qualification etc., Otherwise, the said higher fixation is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 11. In this case, the reason for the anomaly is grant of incentive increments to Paramasivam in 1990 and 1992 while the petitioner was granted incentive increments in 1982 and 1983 for acquiring higher qualifications. It is relevant to extract paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit:- "8. The said S.Paramasivam was sanctioned incentive increments for acquiring higher qualification in 1990 and 1992. The applicant got his incentive increments in as early as 1982 and 1983. This lead to the fixation of higher basic pay to S.Paramasivam than the applicant." 12. The grant of higher pay to Paramasivam on the ground that he was given incentive increments subsequent to the petitioner, i.e., after a decade, is not agreeable to me for the sole reason that it amounts to punishment on the petitioner for acquiring higher qualification earlier and earned incentive increments earlier. The person who acquired higher qualification subsequently cannot be placed at higher pay, particularly, when he joined on the same day along with the petitioner. 13. The person who acquired higher qualification subsequently cannot be placed at higher pay, particularly, when he joined on the same day along with the petitioner. 13. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order is arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to pay the petitioner on par with Paramasivam from the date of anomaly with all arrears, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.