G.Sivakumar. Vs. the District Elementary Educational Officer, and anr.

G.Sivakumar. vs The District Elementary Educational Officer, and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 22, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/904122

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/904122
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: D.Hariparanthaman, J.
Decided On: Sep 22, 2010
Case Number: W.P.No.45286 of 2006
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

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

PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, by way of transfer of O.A.No.5045 of 2000, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in No.1383/A1/99, dated 13.10.1999 and quash the sa...

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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

G.Sivakumar.

Advocate Mr.P.Manoj Kumar, Adv.

Respondent

The District Elementary Educational Officer, and anr.

Advocate Ms.C.Devi, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226

Excerpt

prayer: this writ petition came to be numbered under article 226 of the constitution of india for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, by way of transfer of o.a.no.5045 of 2000, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in no.1383/a1/99, dated 13.10.1999 and quash the same and direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior v.marimuthu and grant him all consequential benefits......with his junior v.marimuthu and grant him all consequential benefits.3. on abolition of the tamil nadu administrative tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and renumbered as w.p.no.45286 of 2006.4. the respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations.5. heard mr.p.manoj kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and ms.c.devi, learned government advocate for the respondents.6. the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on rule 6(2) of the tamil nadu revised scales of pay rules, 1989, which provides for granting equal pay to the senior on par with the junior. rule 6(2) of the tamil nadu revised scales of pay rules, 1989, is extracted here-under:- "in cases where a senior employee who had drawn incentive increments in the pre-revised scale and drawn more pay than his junior prior to 1st june, 1988, draws lesser pay than his junior in the revised scales of pay consequent on the sanction of incentive increments in the revised scales of pay to the junior for acquiring the same higher/qualification after introduction of revised scales of pay, then the pay of the senior may be stepped up to the level of that of the junior from the date from which the junior draws such higher pay."7. in view of the aforesaid rule 6(2) of the tamil nadu revised scales of pay rules, 1989, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to bring the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior viz., mr.v.marimuthu from 01.08.1996 and to pay arrears within a period of eight weeks from today.8. the writ petition is allowed on the above terms. no costs.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner is a Secondary Grade Teacher in Thirupporur Panchayat Union. One Mr.V.Marimuthu is his junior. The petitioner joined the service on 27.12.1989, while Mr.V.Marimuthu joined on 07.08.1991. The petitioner was granted incentive increments for acquiring higher qualification in the year 1994. The incentive increments were paid before the revision of pay. After revision of pay, his junior viz., Mr.V.Marimuthu obtained incentive increment in the year 1996. This resulted in junior getting more pay. The request for putting the petitioner on par with his junior was rejected by the order dated 13.10.1999 of the Additional Elementary Educational Officer, Thirupporur, the second respondent herein.

2. Hence, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.5045 of 2000, to quash the aforesaid order dated 13.10.1999 of the second respondent and for a direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior V.Marimuthu and grant him all consequential benefits.

3. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.45286 of 2006.

4. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations.

5. Heard Mr.P.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.Devi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, which provides for granting equal pay to the senior on par with the junior. Rule 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, is extracted here-under:- "In cases where a senior employee who had drawn incentive increments in the pre-revised scale and drawn more pay than his junior prior to 1st June, 1988, draws lesser pay than his junior in the revised scales of pay consequent on the sanction of incentive increments in the revised scales of pay to the junior for acquiring the same higher/qualification after introduction of revised scales of pay, then the pay of the senior may be stepped up to the level of that of the junior from the date from which the junior draws such higher pay."

7. In view of the aforesaid Rule 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to bring the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior viz., Mr.V.Marimuthu from 01.08.1996 and to pay arrears within a period of eight weeks from today.

8. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2010 Same Parties G.Sivakumar. vs The District Elementary Educational Officer, ... Same Subject Constitution Same Judge D.Hariparanthaman, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226

Constitution