Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

R. Irudayaraj. Vs. the District Elementary Educational Officer. and ors.

R. Irudayaraj. vs The District Elementary Educational Officer, and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 20, 2010
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/904105

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P.NO. 43963 of 2006
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT .. Respondents This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.232/A1/2000 dated 16-05-2000 and quash the same.

Key legal issue
Constitution
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

R. Irudayaraj.

Advocate Mr.P.Mohan, Adv.

Respondent

The District Elementary Educational Officer, and ors.

Advocate Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226

Excerpt

kancheepuram district .. respondents this writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in na.ka.no.232/a1/2000 dated 16-05-2000 and quash the same.order1. the grievance of the petitioner is that her junior one ramalakshmi is getting more pay. but the grievance has no merit. admittedly, the junior was promoted as headmistress of a primary school long before 01.06.1988. it is true that before 01.06.1988, the scale of pay of secondary grade teachers as well as the scale of pay of primary school headmasters/headmistress was the same. the junior was promoted as headmistress of a primary school even before 01.06.1988. but the petitioner never worked in the post of headmistress of primary school until her retirement on 31.05.2000. though she was offered promotion to the post of headmistress of a primary school, she declined promotion to the post of headmistress of primary school in 1991, 1994 and 1998. hence, the petitioner cannot have grievance over the more pay being given to one ramalakshmi, who was admittedly junior at the time of entry into service. there is no merit in this writ petition. 2. accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that her junior one Ramalakshmi is getting more pay. But the grievance has no merit. Admittedly, the junior was promoted as Headmistress of a Primary School long before 01.06.1988. It is true that before 01.06.1988, the scale of pay of secondary grade teachers as well as the scale of pay of primary school Headmasters/Headmistress was the same. The junior was promoted as Headmistress of a primary school even before 01.06.1988. But the petitioner never worked in the post of Headmistress of primary school until her retirement on 31.05.2000. Though she was offered promotion to the post of Headmistress of a primary school, she declined promotion to the post of Headmistress of primary school in 1991, 1994 and 1998. Hence, the petitioner cannot have grievance over the more pay being given to one Ramalakshmi, who was admittedly junior at the time of entry into service. There is no merit in this Writ Petition.

2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial