The grievance of the petitioner, who is admittedly a senior, is that his pay was not stepped up to the pay of his junior, the third respondent with effect from 05.01.1988 and therefore, his junior is drawing more pay.
2.The petitioner was appointed as a B.T. Assistant on 10.08.1973, through TNPSC in Government High School at Sikkal, while the third respondent was initially appointed as a B.T. Assistant under "= a million jobs programme plan's scheme" on 10.12.1973 and later he was inducted in Government Higher Secondary School as B.T. Assistant with effect from 10.12.1973. Hence, admittedly, the third respondent is Junior to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted incentive increment for acquiring M.A. Degree from 25.05.1978 and later another incentive increment for acquiring M.Ed. Degree from 05.01.1982.
3.On abolition of the Tribunal, O.A.No.1594 of 2002 was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.8453 of 2007.
4.Heard the submissions made by Ms.T.Ananthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the first and the second respondents.
5.Though the third respondent was granted incentive increment from 07.05.1985, for acquiring M.A. Degree and another incentive increment from 05.01.1988 for acquiring M.Ed. Degree subsequent to the petitioner, the third respondent was granted higher pay. The third respondent was granted higher pay since he got M.Ed. Degree after the pay was revised, pursuant to the Fourth Pay Commission Recommendations in 1984.
6.The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.320, Finance Department, dated 02.04.1990, clarifying that in cases where juniors are getting higher pay for acquiring higher qualification after the implementation of the Pay Commission recommendations with effect from 01.10.1984, the senior should also be given the pay on par with the juniors. The said G.O.Ms.No.320 is extracted here under.
(G.O.Ms.No.320, Finance (P.C.) Department, dt.2.4.90) "Applicability: A senior had acquired higher qualification etc., and had got one Advance Increment for the same. His junior gets Advance Increment after Pay Commission scales are introduced where the rate of increment will be more.
This may create anomaly of junior drawing more pay than the senior.
Such anomaly may be rectified by stepping up the pay of the senior with that of the junior from the day on which the junior gets more pay.
These orders are effective from 1-10-1984.
Appointing authorities can rectify the anomaly and the proposals need not be sent to the Head of the Department or the Government."
7.However, the first respondent by impugned order dated 28.06.2001 stated that as the third respondent was initially appointed to a different unit, namely the "= a million jobs programme plan's scheme", the petitioner could not seek to rectify the anomaly by comparing with the third respondent.
8.The reasoning of the first respondent is absurd, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This issue is squarely covered by the G.O.Ms.No.320, Finance (P.C.) Department, dt.2.4.90. Otherwise, it amounts to penalizing the petitioner for acquiring higher degree at an earlier point of time.
9.Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the first respondent is directed to step up the pay of the petitioner on par with the third respondent from 05.01.1988 and to pay the arrears amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No Costs.
ssn To
1.The Director of School Education, D.P.I.Complex, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagappattinam District