WP(MD)/7759/2023 of Ramakrishnan K Vs The Director of Elementary E on 13 October 2026

O R D E R

The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this writ petition are as under:

1.1. The petitioner herein was appointed as ‘Secondary Grade Teacher’ on 18.01.1999 in Kandamalai-Mayiladuthurai Union in Theni District. Thereafter, on his request, he was transferred to Chinnamanur Union on 31.01.2001. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of ‘B.T Assistant’ on 02.06.2010, and he has been working as such as on date. In the meanwhile, the fifth respondent herein, who was appointed as ‘Secondary Grade Teacher’ on 21.02.2000 in Sethapatti Union, Theni District, was also transferred from Sethapatti Union, on her willingness, to Chinnamanur Union as ‘Secondary Grade Teacher’ on 02.09.2003, where the petitioner was working by then. Thereafter, the petitioner herein and the fifth respondent were promoted to the post of ‘B.T Assistant’ on 02.06.2010 and 21.07.2012 respectively. Both of them have been working as such as on date in Chinnamanur Union.

1.2. While so, the petitioner herein, on having coming to know that the fifth respondent herein has been drawing higher pay than him in cadre of ‘B.T Assistant’, though she was junior to the petitioner both in the cadre of ‘Secondary Grade Teacher’ as well as in the cadre of ‘B.T Assistant’, approached the respondents requesting for stepping up of his pay on par with his junior, i.e., the fifth respondent herein. After prolonged persuasion and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court to consider the claim of the petitioner, the same was considered by the first respondent herein and through the impugned proceedings bearing e/f/ vz;/14669-o2-2022 dated 29.08.2022, the request of the petitioner was negatived. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 29.08.2022, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

2. Heard Mr.Y.Sasikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, and Mr.M.Pozhilan, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

3. From the perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is evident that the first respondent has compared the entire service particulars of the petitioner and the fifth respondent from time to time and finally came to the conclusion that the difference in pay between the petitioner and the fifth respondent, resulting in the fifth respondent drawing higher pay, is because of allowing the fifth respondent herein to continue to have the benefit of special pay that was awarded in her favour in the cadre of ‘Secondary Grade Teacher’ in terms of the orders issued by the Government in G.O (Ms) No.234, Finance Department, dated 01.06.2009 and G.O (Ms) No.23, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 12.01.2011. Then, the first respondent proceeded to conclude that, in terms of the above said Government Orders and in terms of the Government Order issued in G.O (Ms) No.270, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010, the fifth respondent is not entitled to continue to have the benefit of special pay, which was allowed to her while she was working as a ‘Secondary Grade Teacher’ and therefore, the pay of the fifth respondent fixed on her promotion to the post of ‘B.T Assistant’ with effect from 21.07.2012 itself is erroneous, and therefore such a benefit, which was granted in favour of the fifth respondent erroneously, cannot be extended to the petitioner and consequently, directed for withdrawal of the said benefit extended in favour of the fifth respondent. Thus, the claim made by the petitioner for stepping up of his pay on par with the fifth respondent was negatived through the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent.

4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the fifth respondent entered appearance and also filed a counter-affidavit contending that the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent, directing for cancellation of the pay fixation granted in her favour on her promotion to the post of ‘B.T Assistant’, is not correct and, in fact, she is entitled to continue to draw the special pay which was allowed in her favour while she was working as a ‘Secondary Grade Teacher’.

5. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that, pursuant to the impugned proceedings, the District Educational Officer, Chinnamanur have initiated proceedings to revise the pay of the fifth respondent as directed by the first respondent herein. However, on considering the explanation submitted by the fifth respondent, the District Educational Officer, Chinnamanur had come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to draw the special pay of Rs.750/- granted in her favour, while she was working as a ‘Secondary Grade Teacher’, even after her promotion to the post of ‘B.T Assistant’, and accordingly issued proceedings bearing e/f/vz;/1509-m2-2022 dated 20.02.2023 addressed to the third respondent herein. Thus, it is submitted that the fifth respondent herein continue to draw the special pay in question despite the orders issued by the first respondent.

6. This Court, having taken note of the said proceedings dated 20.02.2023, whereby the fifth respondent was allowed to continue to have the benefit of the special pay of Rs.750/-, which is the reason for the difference in she drawing higher pay than the petitioner, though she is admittedly junior to the petitioner, and the fact that the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of his pay having been rejected solely on the ground that the fifth respondent is not entitled to continue to draw the special pay of Rs.750/- on her promotion to the post of ‘B.T Assistant’, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the first respondent for reconsideration in the light of the proceedings bearing e/f/vz;/1509-m2- 2022, dated 20.02.2023.

7. It is by now well settled that, in case if a junior is drawing higher pay than the senior, all other circumstances being equal, because of the various orders issued by the Government from time to time dealing with fixation of pay, etc., it is the duty of the respondents to step up the pay of the senior on par with his junior.

8. In the light of the above, the impugned proceedings bearing e/f/vz;/14669-o2-2022 dated 29.08.2022 is hereby quashed, and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for reconsidering the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of his pay on par with the fifth respondent and to pass appropriate orders thereon. The first respondent is directed to pass orders as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by duly affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is also granted liberty to submit a fresh representation before the first respondent, if he is so advised, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 13.10.2026 skr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No To

1. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, Chennai.

2. The Joint Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, Chennai.

3. The District Education Officer (Elementary), Office of the District Education Officer, Theni District.

4. The Block Education Officer, The Office of the Block Education Officer, Chinnamanur, Theni District

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. skr Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P (MD) No.7759 of 2023 13.10.2026