Dr. C. Lakshmanan v. Tamil University

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Dr.C.Lakshmanan ... Petitioner - Vs. - Tamil University, Represented by its Registrar, Thanjavur - 613 006

...Respondent

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant the petitioner one additional increment as a fitment benefit after the petitioners appointment to the post of Lecturer from the post of Selection Grade Technician and four additional increments for having passed Ph.D. Degree from the date of the petitioners appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor as given to other similarly placed persons and consequently direct the respondent to pay the petitioner the difference in salary and difference in terminal benefits, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, Award Costs.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondent : Mr.M.Senthil Kumar 1/4

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to grant one additional increment as a fitment benefit to the post of Lecturer from the post of Selection Grade Technician and four additional increments for having passed Ph.D degree from the date of appointment as Lecturer as given to similarly placed person.

2. Heard Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the material documents available on record.

3. The respondent has filed counter stating that the petitioner was already granted five increments and the petitioner is comparing with one Dr.R.Madhavi. It is specifically stated in the counter that the petitioner was already granted two additional increments for completing M.Phil degree and three additional increments for completing Ph.D., degree and his pay was fixed at Rs.23,550/-, as per VI Pay Commission, with effect from 25.06.2007. Hence, all additional increments were paid to the petitioner. Dr.Madhavi, was not given any additional increments earlier, she was given five additional increments and the 2/4

petitioner cannot have any grievance over that. There is no discrepancy paying additional increments between the petitioner and Madhavi. Therefore, there is no discrimination. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Index : Yes / No 20.02.2023 Internet : Yes ksa 3/4

S.SRIMATHY, J ksa Order made in 20.02.2023 4/4