Disposed¶70

D.Johnson v. The Govt of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC26 Aug 2025WP/7091/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tamil Nadu pay revision; 7th Pay Commission; GO.Ms.No.303 Finance (Pay Cell) dated 11.10.2017; GO.Ms.No.234 dated 01.06.2009; Grade Pay Rs.5,400/-; selection grade; B.T.Assistant cadre; football coach; downgraded to Rs.4,800/-; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226; Article 162; WP.(MD).No.2654 of 2018 (19.03.2018); WP.Nos.4943 and 4944 of 2017 (27.09.2023); compliance within four months; disposed of, no costs; Madras High Court; T. Vinod Kumar, J.; 26.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions disposed of subject to the Court's observations and directions: respondents to act on the 5th respondent's communication dated -- February 2025 (signed 26.02.2025) by extending Grade Pay in the revised selection-grade pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and granting the further revision due w.e.f. 01.01.2016, within four months; no costs. ¶70

D.Johnson Vs The Govt of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to revise their pay and fix it in the new pay matrix as per GO.Ms.No.303 Finance (Pay Cell) dated 11.10.2017 with effect from 01.01.2016, corresponding to pay band Rs.15600-39100 + Rs.5400 GP, with consequential arrears. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The main grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petitions stands redressed, as the respondents — by the communication dated -- February 2025 (signed 26.02.2025) issued during pendency — accepted the petitioners' claim and entitlement to Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-, they having moved to selection grade prior to 01.01.2006.

¶64

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondents, by the communication issued during pendency, accepted the petitioners' claim of selection grade prior to 01.01.2006, the petitioners automatically became entitled to further revision of grade pay after a period of 10 years w.e.f. 01.01.2006, which the respondents are required to grant.

¶65

Key takeaways

The respondents are directed to act on the basis of the communication dated -- February 2025 (signed on 26.02.2025): firstly, by extending to the petitioners the benefit of Grade Pay in the revised pay scale of selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.2006; and secondly, by granting the benefit of further revision stated to be due w.e.f. 01.01.2016, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (T. Vinod Kumar, J.), 26.08.2025 — W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019 (D. Johnson and P. James v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others): Petitioners, appointed athletic/football coaches on 23.11.1992 and granted selection grade in 2002, sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 directing revision of pay per GO.Ms.No.303 (Finance (Pay Cell)) dated 11.10.2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in pay band Rs.15600-39100 + Rs.5400 GP with consequential arrears. An earlier attempt to downgrade their grade pay to Rs.4,800/- (letter dated 22.08.2014) had been held contrary to GO.Ms.No.234 by a coordinate bench in WP.(MD).No.2654 of 2018 (order dated 19.03.2018), followed in WP.Nos.4943 and 4944 of 2017 (ordered 27.09.2023). During pendency, the 5th respondent's proceedings dated -- February 2025 (signed 26.02.2025) confirmed pay band Rs.15600-39100 + 5400 Grade Pay continuously. Holding the main grievance redressed, the Court held that on the respondents' acceptance of the selection-grade claim the petitioners automatically became entitled to further grade-pay revision after 10 years w.e.f. 01.01.2006, and directed the respondents to extend selection-grade pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and grant the further revision due w.e.f. 01.01.2016 within four months; writ petitions disposed of, no costs.

¶1

W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019

¶7

D.Johnson .. petitioner in WP.No.7091 of 2019

¶8

P.James

¶9

.. petitioner in WP.No.7353 of 2019

¶10

¶11

The Government of Tamil Nadu

¶12

rep by the Principal Secretary to Government Finance (pay cell) Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶13

2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu School Education Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

3.The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶15

4.The Chief Educational Officer Cuddalore District Cuddalore.

¶16

5.The District Educational Officer Cuddalore District Cuddalore.

¶17

6.The Secretary

¶18

Neyveli Lignite Boys Higher Secondary School Block No.10, Neyveli Cuddalore District. … Respondents in both cases

¶19

1/9

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019

¶22

Common Prayer : Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to revise the pay of the petitioner and fix the same in the new pay matrix as per the GO.Ms.No.303 finance pay cell dated 11.10.2017 with effect from 01.01.2016, corresponding to pay band of Rs.15600-39100 + Rs.5400 GP and grant consequential arrears and pass such other further orders.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saseetharan For Respondents : M/s.P.Rajarajeswari, GA for R1 to R5. Mr.N.Nithianandam for R6.

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

Heard Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and M/s.P.Rajarajeswari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.N.Nithianandam, learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent.

¶26

Both the writ petitions are filed to direct the respondents to revise

¶27

the pay of the petitioners and to fix the same in the new pay matrix as per the GO.Ms.No.303 finance pay cell dated 11.10.2017 with effect from 01.01.2016, corresponding to pay band of Rs.15600-39100 + Rs.5400 GP and to grant consequential arrears.

¶28

2/9

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019

¶31

3.The case of the petitioners in brief is that the petitioners were

¶32

appointed as athletic / football coach on 23.11.1992 and on completion of 10 years of service, they were granted selection grade pay in the year 2002; and that on the 7 th pay revision being implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide GO.Ms.No.234 dated 01.06.2009, they were placed in scale of selection grade as specified in Annexure-I to the letter dated 08.11.2010.

¶33

4. It is further case of the petitioner that though the petitioners were extended the benefit of pay the scale in terms of GO.Ms.No.234 dated 01.06.2009, by virtue of letter dated 22.08.2014, the petitioners grade pay was sought to be down graded to Rs.4,800/- as against Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-, by treating the petitioners employment as equivalent to vocational teacher.

¶34

5. Petitioners contended that the aforesaid communication dated 22.08.2014 was subject matter of challenge before the Madurai Bench of this Court in WP.(MD).No.2654 of 2018 and the Court by its order dated 19.03.2018 had held that the aforementioned letter communication runs contrary to the GO; and also that the vocational teachers do not have promotional avenues, while the BT Assistant can be promoted as Head 3/9

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019

¶37

Masters and as such, the petitioners are entitled to get the Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-.

¶38

6. The petitioners further contended that since, the coordinate bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition having held that the impugned letter dated 22.08.2014 cannot prevail over the GO issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, the letter dated nil December 2016, signed on 03.01.2017 by the 5 th respondent as sought to made applicable to the petitioners cannot be enforced.

¶39

7. It is the further contention of the petitioners that since, the

¶40

petitioners were placed in Selection Grade prior to 01.01.2006, the petitioners would be entitled to benefit of 7 th pay revision, on completion of 10years w.e.f. 01.01.2016, corresponding to Rs.5,400/- Grade Pay which was not been implemented by the respondents, for which, the petitioners have approached this Court vide WP.Nos.4943 and 4944 of 2017 and the said writ petitions were ordered by this Court on 27.09.2023.

¶41

8. The petitioners further contended that pursuant to the order of this

¶42

Court in WP.Nos. 4943 and 4944 of 2017, the respondents now sought to

¶43

4/9

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019

¶46

give effect to the orders of this Court vide proceedings dated -- February 2025 signed on 26.02.2025 by the 5 th respondent, whereby and where under it has been stated as under :

¶47

“As per the order of (4) referred above and government

¶48

orders and letters, the claim of Petitioner is considered. He is

¶49

working as Football Coach in the cadre of B.T.Assistant. He has no promotional avenues. Taking into account that he moved to selection grade before 01.01.2006, to avoid the contempt proceedings as initiated in reference (9) referred above, the proceedings of this office referred (3) above is confirmed and the individual is allowed to draw pay in pay band of Rs.15600-39100 + 5400 Grade Pay continuously and order is issued accordingly.”

¶50

9. Since, the respondents now sought to give the benefit of 7 th pay revision with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the petitioner would be entitled to pay revision on the Grade pay of Rs.5,400/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and the stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit cannot be countenanced.

¶51

5/9

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019

¶54

10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf

¶55

of the respondents 1 to 5 fairly submitted that the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the month of December 2020, now stands altered on account of subsequent proceedings of the 5 th respondent dated -- February 2025, whereby, the respondents have acceded to the claim of the petitioner, for being placed in the Grade pay band of Rs.5,400/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as they had moved to selection grade prior to 01.01.2006.

¶56

11. The learned Government Advocate further submits that in view of the said proceedings, the respondents have accepted the claim of the petitioners of being entitled for selection grade prior to 01.01.2006 and as such they would now be entitled for the benefit of further grade pay revision, after a period of 10 years therefrom.

¶57

12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶58

13. While, the petitioners have approached this Court claiming of they being entitled to grade increment in terms of Annexure-I to letter dated 08.11.2010 which was sought to be restricted vide letter dated 22.08.2014,

¶59

6/9

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019

¶62

since, a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 19.03.2018 in

¶63

WP.(MD).No.2654 of 2018 having held the said letter to be contrary to

¶64

GO.Ms.No.234, and the said order having been followed by another coordinate bench of this Court in WP.Nos.4943 and 4944 of 2017 dated 27.09.2023 and also taking note of the communication dated nil February 2025 signed on 26.02.2025 by the 5 th respondent, the main grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petitions stand redressed, as the respondents by the aforesaid communication had now accepted the claim and entitlement of the petitioners for Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- having moved to selection grade prior to 01.01.2006.

¶65

14. Since, the respondents by the aforesaid communication issued during the pendency of the present writ petitions have accepted the claim of petitioners, the petitioners would automatically become entitled for further revision of grade pay after a period of 10 years w.e.f. 01.01.2006, which the respondents are required to grant to the petitioners.

¶66

15. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to act on the basis of the communication dated -- February 2025 (signed on 26.02.2025), firstly by extending to the petitioners the benefit of Grade pay in the revised pay 7/9

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019

¶69

scale of selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and secondly, by granting the benefit of further revision which is stated to be due w.e.f. 01.01.2016, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶70

16. Subject to the above observation and directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶71

26.08.2025

¶72

Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No tsh To 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep by the Principal Secretary to Government Finance (pay cell) Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶73

2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu School Education Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶74

3.The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶75

4.The Chief Educational Officer Cuddalore District Cuddalore.

¶76

5.The District Educational Officer Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶77

8/9

¶78

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶79

W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019

¶80

T. VINOD KUMAR, J.

¶81

tsh

¶82

W.P.Nos.7091 and 7353 of 2019

¶83

26.08.2025

¶84

9/9

¶85

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Stand of respondents 1 to 5 in the counter affidavit filed in December 2020 resisting the petitioners' claim to 7th pay revision benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2016 on Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- (stand subsequently altered by the 5th respondent's proceedings dated -- February 2025, signed 26.02.2025)¶50
Counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 5 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the present writ petitions · December 2020
Prior proceeding
Petitioners appointed as athletic / football coach on 23.11.1992; on completion of 10 years of service, granted selection grade pay in the year 2002.¶32
Prior proceeding
7th pay revision implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide GO.Ms.No.234 dated 01.06.2009; petitioners placed in scale of selection grade as specified in Annexure-I to the letter dated 08.11.2010.¶32
Prior proceeding
By virtue of letter dated 22.08.2014, petitioners' grade pay sought to be downgraded to Rs.4,800/- as against Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-, treating their employment as equivalent to vocational teacher.¶33
Prior proceeding
Letter dated 22.08.2014 challenged before the Madurai Bench of this Court in WP.(MD).No.2654 of 2018; by order dated 19.03.2018 the Court held the letter contrary to the GO, noted vocational teachers lack promotional avenues while BT Assistants can be promoted as Head Masters, and that the petitioners are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-.¶34
Prior proceeding
Letter dated nil December 2016, signed on 03.01.2017 by the 5th respondent, contended by petitioners to be unenforceable as it could not prevail over the GO issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.¶38
Prior proceeding
Petitioners earlier approached this Court vide WP.Nos.4943 and 4944 of 2017 claiming benefit of 7th pay revision on completion of 10 years w.e.f. 01.01.2016 corresponding to Rs.5,400/- Grade Pay; said writ petitions were ordered by this Court on 27.09.2023.¶40
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the order in WP.Nos.4943 and 4944 of 2017, the 5th respondent issued proceedings dated -- February 2025 (signed 26.02.2025) considering the claim, noting the individual works as Football Coach in the cadre of B.T.Assistant with no promotional avenues and moved to selection grade before 01.01.2006, confirming the earlier proceedings and allowing drawal of pay in pay band Rs.15600-39100 + 5400 Grade Pay continuously.¶49
Prior proceeding
Learned Government Advocate submitted that the stand in the counter affidavit of December 2020 stands altered on account of the 5th respondent's proceedings dated -- February 2025, whereby the respondents acceded to the claim of placement in Grade Pay band Rs.5,400/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006, having moved to selection grade prior to 01.01.2006.¶55

D.Johnson v. The Govt of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Johnson v. The Govt of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.M.Devaraj Vs The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine

K.Sivakumar Vs The Managing Director

E.Chellapandian Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Kopa.Sitrarasu Vs The Management of Nlc of India Ltd.

K.Govindaraju Vs The Managing Director

R.Mottaiyandi, Vs The General Manager