WP/32837/2022 of S.Venkatesan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 30 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass orders granting pay and post parity to the petitioners on par with their junior, K.R. Balasubramanian, who was allotted to the Finance Unit and recruited pursuant to a common selection initiated prior to 28.01.1994, with all consequential and other attendant benefits, including arrears of salary, by considering the representations dated 05.01.2007 and 27.01.2022 submitted by the petitioners, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, until the year 1970, the entire Secretariat Department, including the Finance Department, was treated as one unit. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1290, Public (Services) Department, dated 05.06.1970, the Finance Department was recognised as a separate unit. However, there was a common recruitment for both the Finance Department and the other Departments through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.30, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.01.1994, the terms “one unit” and “Finance Unit” were defined and classified separately as independent units with retrospective effect from 05.06.1970.

3. It is also his contention that, until the year 1995, there was a common recruitment and there were no specific criteria for allotment to a particular Department. It is his specific case that juniors were allotted to the Finance Department, whereas seniors were allotted to other Departments. Due to such allotment, a pay anomaly arose. Therefore, in order to address the said pay anomaly, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.126, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.05.1998, and G.O.Ms.No.154, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 30.10.2009, to rectify the pay anomaly as a special case. Similarly, G.O.Ms.No.31, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 01.03.2017, was also issued to address the grievance of the employees who had been appointed in the Finance Department as well as in other Departments.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, though the juniors were recruited pursuant to a common recruitment, merely because they were appointed in the Finance Department, without any counselling or prescribed criteria, they were placed in a higher pay and cadre position than the petitioners, who are seniors to one K.R. Balasubramanian. It is the specific submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the said K.R. Balasubramanian and the petitioners were recruited pursuant to a common recruitment and that the petitioners were senior to the said K.R. Balasubramanian. Therefore, it is his submission that the pay of the petitioners, who are seniors, ought to be fixed on par with that of their junior, namely, K.R. Balasubramanian. In this regard, the petitioners have submitted a representation through the Hon’ble Minister for Finance and Human Resources Management.

5. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that, in similar circumstances, the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 16.04.2006 in W.P.No.36014 of 2003, had directed the respondents to reconsider the representation, keeping in view G.O.Ms.No.31, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 01.03.2017, and to pass appropriate orders afresh within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel would pray for a similar order in respect of the petitioners herein.

6. The said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Government Advocate and would contend that the petitioners cannot claim parity in seniority merely because they were recruited pursuant to a common selection. It is also his submission that, as per G.O.Ms.No.126, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.05.1998, and G.O.Ms.No.30, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.01.1994, the Finance Department is an independent and separate unit. It is also the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the representations submitted by the petitioners had already been rejected, as the petitioners had joined service after 28.01.1994. He would further submit that G.O.Ms.No.126, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.05.1998, was issued as a one-time measure. Though the petitioners place reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.154, the said Government Order prescribed a cut-off date and only those who had been recruited prior to 28.01.1994 were entitled to the benefit of stepping up of pay.

7. It is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that, since the petitioners were recruited subsequent to the cut-off date, namely, 28.01.1994, they are not eligible for such benefits. It is also his contention that this Court, in W.A.No.1020 of 2014, dated 19.08.2014, had upheld the power of the Government to fix a cut-off date and that the said judgment was subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.32262 of 2014 and R.P. (C) No.32 of 2018, dated 17.11.2017 and 24.01.2018, respectively. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the petitioners do not fall within the zone of consideration for claiming pay and post parity with the said K.R. Balasubramanian.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

9. There is no serious dispute with regard to the factual aspects placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The point that arises for consideration is whether the claim of the petitioners, who were appointed after 28.01.1994, for pay parity can be reconsidered afresh, keeping in view G.O.Ms.No.31, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 01.03.2017.

10. The main contention putforth by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, though the Government Orders stipulate certain cut-off dates, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners herein were senior to those who were appointed in the Finance Department.

11. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court is of the considered view that the representations of the petitioners dated 05.01.2007 and 27.01.2022 require consideration by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court directs the respondents to consider the aforesaid representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders on its merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KV

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Human Resources Management Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 32837 of 2022 30-09-2026