R.Chandrasekaran v. The Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :17.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR R.Chandrasekaran ..Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600009.
2.The Director of Public Libraries, Government of Tamil Nadu, Office of the Director of Public Libraries, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002.
..Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in its proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 11906/A3/2018 dated 18.07.2018 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to fix the pay for the petitioner on par with his junior E. Krishnamoorthy and to grant monetary benefits with effect from 14.08.2011to the petitioner herein and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Purushothaman For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari, GA
O R D E R
The petitioner challenges the order dated 18.07.2018 issued by the second respondent. By the said order, the claim of the petitioner seeking extension of the pay scale granted to his junior, namely E. Krishnamoorthy, was rejected.
2. The petitioner, while serving as Grade-I Librarian, was reverted to the cadre of Grade-II Librarian pursuant to the order of this Court directing the Government to maintain a State-wise seniority list of all Librarians from Grade-III onwards. Aggrieved by the said order, the State as well as certain affected individuals preferred writ appeals before this Court. The petitioner also impleaded himself as a third party appellant in the writ appeal. The Division Bench, by order dated 20.09.2010, dismissed the said appeals.
3. Thereafter, nine appellants, who had been reverted to the post of Grade-II Librarian like the petitioner, approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1100 to 1108 of 2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 21.01.2015, confirmed the order of the Division Bench with certain observations protecting the said nine appellants from reversion. It was further clarified that the grant of any benefit to those appellants would in no way
prejudice the persons who were otherwise entitled to the benefit of the clarificatory order.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Grade-I Librarian. His junior, namely E. Krishnamoorthy, continued in the said post pursuant to the protection granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner submitted a representation stating that the pay scale extended to him was lower than that of his junior and sought rectification of the alleged anomaly. By the impugned order, the said request was rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that E. Krishnamoorthy was admittedly junior to the petitioner and that granting a lower pay scale to the petitioner than that of his junior is arbitrary and discriminatory. It was contended that the anomaly in pay ought to be rectified.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that E. Krishnamoorthy and the other appellants were specifically protected from reversion by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the pay scale attached to the post of Grade-I Librarian was continued to E. Krishnamoorthy. The protection granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
confined only to the nine appellants therein. Since the petitioner had not approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and had not obtained a similar protective order, he is not entitled to claim extension of the pay scale granted to his junior.
7. The submissions of the learned counsel on either side were heard and the materials available on record were perused.
8. In the order dated 21.01.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that four out of the nine appellants had already attained the age of superannuation. Considering the fact that they had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing in the miscellaneous petition before the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, without remanding the matter, directed that the nine appellants before it shall not be affected by the clarificatory order. It was further clarified that the grant of any benefit to those appellants would not prejudice the persons otherwise entitled to the benefit of the clarificatory order.
9. In view of the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the junior of the petitioner, namely E. Krishnamoorthy, was continued in the post of Grade-I
Librarian and was extended the pay scale attached to the said post. The petitioner, however, was reverted pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court and was placed in the pay scale of Grade-II Librarian. Though he was subsequently promoted as Grade-I Librarian and was placed above his junior E. Krishnamoorthy in the final seniority list for the post of Grade-I Librarian/Inspector of Libraries, the protection granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was confined exclusively to the nine appellants therein.
10. It is not in dispute that both the petitioner and his junior are presently drawing the pay scale attached to the post of Grade-I Librarian. The petitioner cannot claim parity in respect of the earlier period on the basis of a protective order that was specifically confined to certain individuals who had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. In the above circumstances, I find no legal infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondents. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 17.02.2026 Index : Yes Internet : Yes ak To 1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600009.
2.The Director of Public Libraries, Government of Tamil Nadu, Office of the Director of Public Libraries, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002.
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
ak W.P No.2311 of 2019 02.02.2026