Madras High Court
C.Shanthi vs The District Elementary Education ... on 8 May, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.05.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P(MD)No.3731 of 2016
C.Shanthi
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Elementary Education Officer,
Pudukottai.
2.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,
Arimalam,
Pudukottai District.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in
his proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.633/A3/2015 dated 07.10.2015 and quash the
same and with a consequential direction directing the respondents herein to
rectify the pay anomaly of the petitioner with her junior, Lakshmi and re-fix
the salary of the petitioner with all consequential monetary benefits.
!For Petioner :
^For Respondens :
:ORDER
The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.633/A3/2015 dated 07.10.2015 and quash the same and a consequential direction directing the respondents to rectify the pay anomaly of the petitioner with her junior Lakshmi and refix the salary of the petitioner with all consequential monetary benefits.
2. As per the affidavit averments, the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 22.10.1988. She was promoted as a Primary School Headmistress on 30.07.1999, Subsequently, she was promoted as Headmistress of Middle School from 10.10.2005 and presently, the petitioner is working in that capacity.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that one P.L.Lakshmi, who is junior to the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 15.12.1989 and was promoted as Headmistress of Primary School on 20.10.2009 (which is wrongly typed in the affidavit as 21.10.2009) and subsequently promoted as Headmistress of Middle School on 02.08.2010. She also got two incentives for higher educational qualification.
4. As per the initial appointment and also the subsequent promotions, the petitioner being the senior person than the said Lakshmi. However, the said Lakshmi was receiving higher pay than the petitioner as she was drawing Rs.20,170/- as monthly salary, whereas the petitioner was receiving only Rs.19,960/- from 02.08.2010. The said Lakshmi was drawing Rs.21,610/- as a Middle School Headmistress, whereas on the same cadre, the petitioner was receiving only Rs.20,560/-. Therefore, it became obvious that the salary of the petitioner has not been fixed properly as there is a pay anomaly which is palpable as her junior, admittedly getting higher pay than the petitioner and therefore, in order to rectify the said anomaly, the petitioner had approached the respondents.
5. However, by the impugned order dated 07.10.2015, the second respondent, by quoting the communication of the first respondent dated 14.08.2015, has informed the petitioner that the petitioner without even working as Primary School Headmistress had been directly promoted as Graduate Teacher or B.T., Assistant and then was promoted directly to the Middle School Headmistress, whereas the said junior was promoted as Primary School Headmistress and then Middle School Headmistress. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to get any higher pay than the junior Lakshmi and therefore, her request was rejected. Challenging the said order of the second respondent, dated 07.10.2015, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.
6. Mrs.Porkodikarnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the reasons cited in the impugned order is totally wrong as the petitioner has been promoted initially from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher to Primary School Headmistress and only then after working for some years as Primary School Headmistress, she was further promoted as Middle School Headmistress. Therefore, the very basis for the rejection of the petitioner's plea as has been made in the impugned order of the second respondent is against the fact and therefore, on that ground alone the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that for rectification of this kind of pay anomaly, the Government issued G.O.(Ms.)No.25, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 23.03.2015. The learned counsel would rely upon paras -5 & 6 of the said G.O., which reads thus:
?5.The Government direct that in cases where Government servants who have been appointed/promoted to higher posts without moving to Selection Grade/Special Grade in the lower post and there by happen to draw less pay than their Junior who are appointed/promoted to the higher posts after moving to the Selection Grade/Special Grade of the lower post, in the revised scales of pay, the pay of such seniors should be fixed in the higher post equal to the pay of the Junior in the higher post with effect from the date of drawal of higher pay by The junior in the higher post subject to fulfilment of the following conditions:
I.Both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the post in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre.
II.The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical.
III.The pay anomaly should be arising directly as a result of fixation of pay in the promotional post after fixation of pay in the Selection Grade/Special Grade of the lower post. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time, a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increment, the provisions contained in this order should not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer, and IV.The orders refixing the pay of the senior officers in accordance with the provisions of this order should be issued under Fundamental Rule 27. The next increment of the senior officer will be drawn on completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of refixation of the pay.
6.This order shall take effect from 01.01.2006.?
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of these two reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the petitioner shall be given the pay benefit at least on par with her junior.
9. Per contra, Mr.V.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that if at all any pay anomaly between the two teachers, the same can be rectified, as per the guidelines given in the Government Order referred to above viz., G.O.(Ms.)No.25 dated 23.03.2015. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it may be a fact that the petitioner would have been promoted from the post of Primary School Headmistress to the post of Middle School Headmistress and if the petitioner's case is definite on this account that the petitioner has been promoted from the Primary School Headmistress to the Middle School Headmistress, then the same can be taken in to account and accordingly, revised decision can be taken by the authorities concerned.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
11. Since the issue raised in this writ petition is in very narrow campus as admittedly, the petitioner being the senior than the one individual Lakshmi and she was drawing higher pay than the petitioner and also it is the fact that the petitioner had been properly promoted from secondary grade teacher to Primary School Headmistress and only thereafter, she was further promoted as Middle School Headmistress, the only reason adduced in the impugned order of the second respondent is palpably wrong and therefore, on that ground itself, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. More over, if at all any pay anomaly, the same can be rectified only by the appropriate authority as per the guidelines issue by the Government from time to time in this regard. The petitioner's grievance can be rectified by the concerned authority at least by a District level Officer in the Department of Education by following the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.(Ms.)No.25, cited supra and therefore, the present impugned order issued by the second respondent is in the opinion of the Court is unsustainable ad therefore, that is liable to be quashed.
12. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent ie., District Elementary Education Officer, who in turn would call the relevant service records of the petitioner as well as the individual viz., Lakshmi and on consideration of the same, if the petitioner is senior than the said individual and if there is any pay anomaly between these two, the same can be rectified and accordingly, the pay of the petitioner shall be revised from the date her Junior got the higher pay and on rectification of the same, the dues shall be calculated accordingly and the pay arrears shall also be paid to the petitioner.
13. All these directions issued above shall be complied with by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
To
1.The District Elementary Education Officer, Pudukottai.
2.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Arimalam, Pudukottai District.
.