The District Educational Officer v. S K Vasanthalakshmi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 01.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR and C.M.P.(MD)No.11861 of 2025 1.The District Educational Officer, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District.

2.The Block Educational Officer, Ammapettai, Thanjavur District 614 401.

... Appellants / Respondents Vs.

S.K.Vasanthalakshmi ... Respondent / Petitioner PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 20.08.2024 made in W.P.(MD)No.7670 of 2021 and allow the writ appeal.

1/5

For Appellants : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides.

2. The respondent herein filed W.P.(MD)No.7670 of 2021 challenging the pay anomaly. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 20.08.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the department filed this writ appeal.

3. At Page No.63 of the typed set of papers, the comparative table has been enclosed. It is seen therefrom that the writ petitioner as well as one Shakila joined as secondary grade teachers on 17.06.1991. Both of them were conferred with selection grade in June 2001. The respondent herein was promoted as Elementary School Headmistress on 16.06.2003. She became BT Assistant on 05.11.2007. Shakila on the other hand got 2/5

promotion to the post of Elementary School Headmistress on 30.06.2012. However, she became BT Assistant on 01.11.2014. But before getting such promotion, she was conferred with special grade on 18.06.2011. She had by then completed 20 years of service. Because Shakila got promotion after she was already conferred with special grade, there arose pay anomaly between the pay drawn by the appellant and the pay drawn by her. Even though the respondent as well as the said Shakila had entered service on the same day, the respondent herein got promotion as well as her pay nine years ahead in point of time. Therefore, the respondent cannot have any cause for complaint. The department has adequately explained as to how the pay anomaly arose. We are satisfied with the said explanation.

4. Of-course, as rightly pointed out by the respondent herein, this aspect was not properly projected in the order impugned in the writ petition. We cannot shut our eyes to the facts that are appearing on the face of the record. The learned single Jude did not take note of these aspects. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside. 3/5

5. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(G.R.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 01.08.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi 4/5

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.

rmi W.A(MD) No.2075 of 2025 01.08.2025 5/5