B.S.Lakshmammal, v. The District Elementary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.02.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND and W.M.P.Nos. 38236 of 2017 & 22332 of 2018 B.S. Lakshmammal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

... Respondents Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the issue of the impugned order in O.MU.No.3035/A6./2013, dated 09.12.2013 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequentially to direct the first respondent to upgrade the pay scale of the petitioner on par with her junior namely M.Gowramma with effect from 11.08.2008 by following the principle of step up along with 12% interest within a stipulated time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr. G. Mutharasu For Respondents : Mr. V. Manoharan, Additional Government Pleader 1/8

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

2.

The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 08.07.1988. She is working as B.T. Headmistress at Panchayat Union Middle School, Mugalapally Village. One Tmt.M.Gowramma, was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 11.07.1988 and she is presently working as B.T. Headmistress. She is Junior to the petitioner. On 11.08.2008, M.Gowramma's pay scale was fixed as Rs.21,000/- per month (15,600-39,100+5,400) by the respondents. But the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed only Rs.20,590/- (9,300-34,800+4,700). The petitioner made several representations to the respondents to rectify the said pay anomaly and to set up the pay scale to bring it on par with her junior. But the respondents did not take any action. Finally the petitioner made a representation on 07.09.2013 to the respondents. But the first respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on 09.12.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an identical issues, this Court directed the respondents to upgrade the pay of the writ petitioners therein 2/8

on par with their juniors in W.P.Nos.3698 to 3700 of 2007 and 4352 of 2007. The learned counsel also placed a reliance of the order dated 07.02.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.742 of 2018. The learned counsel further submits that the first respondent ought to have given the upgradation to the petitioner on par with his junior. Without doing so, they passed impugned order illegal and arbitrary which is in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and sought to quash the impugned order. 4.

A counter has been filed by the respondents. In the counter, it is admitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher and she is presently working as B.T. Headmistress at Panchayat Union Middle School, Mugalapally Village, Hosur Union, Krishnagiri District. It is averred in the counter that though the petitioner was senior to the said M.Gowramma who was firstly promoted to the post of Headmistress of Primary School and thereafter, she was given promotion to the post of H.M of Middle School and whereas the petitioner was promoted to the post of H.M of Middle School directly without getting promotion to the post of H.M of Primary School and therefore the said M.Gowramma was given with more pay than the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

3/8

5.

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submit that the order in W.P.Nos.3638 to 3700 and 4352 of 2007 are complied due to the avoidance of contempt proceedings and as such, the petitioner cannot take shelter on the ground of the concession granted to some other writ petitioners in those writ petitions and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6.

Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel, this Court did not want to enter into the admitted facts of the case. The only issue to be considered in the present writ petition is whether the pay anomaly accrued in the petitioner's case has to be rectified on par with her junior or not. It is settled law that it is the right of the senior to have their pay fixed on par with their junior by following principles of "Step up". In the present case, admittedly, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed below than her junior.

7.

On perusal of the order of this Court dated 18.06.2012 in W.P.Nos. 3698 of 2017 and batch, at paragraph Nos.17 to 21, it is observed and held as extracted herein under: - "17. It is not disputed that the petitioners are senior to Mr.V.Kamalanathan. It is also not disputed that the petitioners acquired B.Ed and M.A. qualification prior to their junior, which resulted in grant of incentive increment prior to their junior. It is also 4/8

not disputed that anomaly arise due to implementation of VI pay commission, on account of benefit of incentive increment to the junior in revised pay scale, while granting the incentive increment of the petitioner in the pre revised scale.

18. The facts shows that the anomaly in pay occurred due to implementation of the recommendation of VI pay commission.

19. The case of the petitioners, therefore was squarely covered under the principles of "stepping up".

20. The impugned order is a non speaking order, as it does not give any reason, as to why the principles of "step up" was not to be followed.

21. Merely because the junior is posted in a different school, though in the same cadre, cannot be a ground to deny the right of the seniors to have their pay fixed as par with junior, by following principles of "Step up".

8.

In W.P.(MD)No.742 of 2018 at paragraph No.5, it is held as extracted herein under: - "5. The first respondent has proceeded on the footing that sice the petitioner got transferred from Pudukottai to Kayathar Union, it is not possible to set right the pay anomaly. The reason assigned by the first respondent in the impugned order is un-sustainable in law. Even though the writ petitioner came to Kayathar Union by way of transfer and has to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list, the fact remains that the Shanthi got appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher at Kayatharu Union only later in point of time. Therefore, by 5/8

no stretch of imagination the said Shanthi could have stolen a march over the petitioner. The order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. The respondents are directed to set right the pay anomaly and step-up the pay of the petitioner on par with said Shanthi. Such an order shall be issued by the respondents within a period of eight weeks."

The orders stated supra are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9.

In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the first respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner in a routine way without considering the earlier orders passed by this Court and as such, the order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be quashed.

10.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions: -

1. The order impugned in this writ petition is quashed.

2. The respondents are directed to rectify the pay anomaly and settle the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior.

3. Such an order shall be passed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6/8

11.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 12.

There shall be no order as to costs.

21.02.2024 Index :Yes/No AT To 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

7/8

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

AT W.P.No. 34403 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos. 38236 of 2017 & 22332 of 2018 21.02.2024 8/8