Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is stated that while he was working he got B.Ed. Degree in the year 1993 and thereafter got M.Ed. Degree in 1999. Subsequently, he was promoted as Elementary School Headmaster on 16.09.2004 and was further promoted as Middle School Headmaster on 01.07.2005. He averred that he was sanctioned incentive increment in the year 1993 as per V Pay Commission and thereafter in 1999 for M.Ed. Course as per VI Pay Commission.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that his junior, one P.Sankaralingam, who was drawing only Rs.4750/- at the time when the petitioner was drawing Rs.4875/-, is being paid Rs.5125/-, whereas the petitioner was paid only Rs.5000/- as on 01.07.1996, since the said individual acquired B.Ed. Degree in the new scale of pay and incentive increment was sanctioned in revised scale of pay.

9. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the Pay Commission Rules, if there is an anomaly of junior getting more scale of pay than senior, the scale of the senior has to be stepped up on a par with that of his junior, if the anomaly occurred on account of incentive increments.

10. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents reiterated the reasons that weighed with the authorities below and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. He, however, drew the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance Department, dated 13.4.1998, more particularly the note under para 5(1) of the said government order, which reads as under:

13. However, in May, 1996, incentive increment was granted to Sankaralingam for higher qualification of B.Ed. and his pay was fixed at Rs.5000/-, whereas the petitioner, who was senior, was drawing only Rs.4875/- . It is only the pay revision granted with effect from 01.07.1996, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

14. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, which stipulates as under:

?Rule 5(2) 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 January 1996 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/special 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."
12.Further, the right of the seniors claiming parity with juniors pay is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 39 (d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if junior is granted incentive increment for acquiring higher qualifications and the senior does not acquire such a higher qualification, the senior cannot claim parity. But, if the senior obtained higher qualification prior to the junior and the junior acquires higher qualification later, the scale of pay of senior should be brought on par with the junior, if the junior's pay became more due to the sanction of incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification. Otherwise, it amounts to punishing the senior for acquiring higher qualification at the earlier point of time and it also defeats the very purpose of granting incentive increments for acquiring higher qualification. The very purpose is to persuade the teachers for obtain higher qualification, so that they render better service to the students. Thus, if acquiring higher qualification earlier is put to disadvantage to a person, the very scheme of providing incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification gets defeated.