A retired Headmaster sought quashing of an order refusing stepping up of his pay on par with Vocational Instructors with arrears under Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989. The court held the government's explanation well-reasoned and found the relied-on precedents did not address these issues, dismissing the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD) No.1608 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 24.07.2025
Pronounced On : 14.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.1608 of 2017
J.Dharmaraj, S/o. A.Joseph, No.4-26/1 /1, Park Town, 6th Street, P & T Nagar, Madurai -17. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1/9
W.P.(MD) No.1608 of 2017
PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in Na.Ka.No.5062/Al/2016 on the file of the Respondent No.4 dated 22.11.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the Respondent No.4 to rectify the pay difference by way of stepping up the scale of pay of the petitioner on par with the pay of Vocational Instructor which was the substantive post held by the Petitioner with effect from 16.10.2012 and disburse the monetary benefit along with arrears in accordance with the Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1989 within the time period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and pass any further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr.Rithick Susil, Advocate for M/s.Lajapathi Roy Associates
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
J U D G M E N T
Heard.
whereby the 4th Respondent declined the request for stepping up of pay. The Petitioner further prays for a consequential direction to rectify the
2/9
W.P.(MD) No.1608 of 2017
pay disparity by stepping up the scale of pay on par with that of a Vocational Instructor — the substantive post earlier held by the Petitioner — with effect from 16.10.2012, and to disburse the resultant monetary benefits along with arrears, in accordance with Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989.
3/9
W.P.(MD) No.1608 of 2017
28.02.2017, to which the Petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit dated 18.12.2018. Subsequently, the 3rd Respondent filed an additional counter affidavit dated 06.12.2021.
“6. It is again submitted that having failed to step up his pay in the post of P.G.Assistant in the year 2005 itself the Petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition for steppingup his officiation pay in the post of Hr.Sec.School Head Master. The Stepping up of the pay in the officiating post on per with the substantive post is eligible only in V Pay Commission from 01-01-1996 to 31.12.2005. Had the petitioner claimed the pay parity during the above period (ie) while he was working as P.G.Assistant the present anamoly of pay in the post of Hr.Sec.School Head Master would not have occurred. His representation dated 05-09-2015 sent to this Respondent does not disclose any illustration as to how his substantive pay is more than the officiating pay.
4/9
W.P.(MD) No.1608 of 2017
following averments are made:—
“12. It is humbly submitted that in the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009 Rule 5(2) and (3) on Rectification of anomaly of Junior getting more pay than Senior it is noted that the pay in the pay band of the senior Government employee should be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay in the pay band as fixed for his junior in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of appointment of the junior Government employee subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions, namely:-
(2) The anomaly should have arisen directly as a result of the introduction of the revised scales of pay.
(3) Where a junior who opts to come over to the revised scale from a date subsequent to 1st January 2006 and happens to get more than that of his senior by way of fitment benefit, then the pay of the senior shall be stepped up to the level of the pay of the junior with effect from the date from which the junior draws such higher pay, provided that the senior was drawing pay higher than or equal to the pay of the junior in the pre-revised scales of pay from time to time.
The petitioner’s pay anomaly was not arisen directly as a result of the introduction of the revised scales of pay but the juniors who retained as vocational instructors received special benefits in their Service Rule alone to which the petitioner cannot be compared with.
5/9
W.P.(MD) No.1608 of 2017
the Finance Department of the Government to the University of Madras, regarding revision of pay scale, by letter dated 18.05.2011, which reads as follows:—
“In the absence of specific provision in the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 2009, the provision made under Rule 4(3) of the Tamilnadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 cannot be made applicable in the revised scales pay as notified in the Tamilnadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009.
In the revised pay scales implemented with effect from 1.1.2006 no separate scales of pay have been provided for selection Grade / Special Grade posts. Hence only one increment equal to three percent of the
6/9
W.P.(MD) No.1608 of 2017
basic pay including grade pay in the same pay bank and grade pay is allowances employees on award of Selection Grade / Special Grade pay question of awarding selection grade / special grade in the promotion counting the services rendered in the selection grade of the lower post of arises and hence, the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 210, Personnel Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 11.3.1987 cannot be applicable in the revised scales of pay implemented with effect from 1.1.2006 the objection raised by the Local Fund Audit Department is in order.”
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
14.08.2025
Index: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes / No LS
7/9
W.P.(MD) No.1608 of 2017
To
8/9
W.P.(MD) No.1608 of 2017
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J. LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in W.P. (MD) No.1608 of 2017
14.08.2025
9/9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to stepping up of pay on par with Vocational Instructors under Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 despite the absence of a corresponding
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A. RengarajReferred¶8
W.P. No. 11677 of 2007 dated 17.04.2012
J. DharmarajReferred¶8
W.P.(MD) No. 16968 of 2016 dated 21.09.2016
3 provisions across 3 enactments
J. Dharmaraj
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education
The Director of School Education
The Joint Director of School Education
The District Educational Officer, Dindigul
A.D. Maria Clete
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
