Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

M.R.Ravichandran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2026
M.R.Ravichandran Vs the State of Tamil NaduM.R.Ravichandran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Dismissed¶35

M.R.Ravichandran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Feb 2026WA(MD)/429/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal W.A.(MD)No.429 of 2021, Madurai Bench, Madras High Court, decided 03.02.2026 by G.R. Swaminathan and R. Kalaimathi JJ. Keywords: Vocational Instructor appointed 13.01.2009; pay erroneously fixed; higher pay scale; parity; G.O.(Ms)No.840 Pay Commission Department 31.07.1990; equal pay for equal work; complete/wholesale identity test; mere overlapping insufficient; Teachers Recruitment Board recruitment; G.O.Ms.No.129 (18.05.1999); G.O.Ms.No.63 (13.03.2007); G.O.Ms.No.6 (04.01.2000); G.O.Ms.No.967 (16.10.1992); double part-time vocational instructors; issue res integra; Full Bench order dated 05.03.2021 in W.A.(MD)No.201 of 2021 followed; H.P. Gupta v. Union of India (2002) 10 SCC 658; State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh (2009) 9 SCC 514; Single Judge order dated 09.10.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.15233 of 2014 sustained; appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The issue raised in the writ appeal is no longer res integra, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court having settled it by order dated 05.03.2021 in W.A.(MD)No.201 of 2021.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, appointed as Vocational Instructor on 13.01.2009, was entitled to a higher pay scale on parity with employees covered by G.O.(Ms)No.840 (Pay Commission Department) dated 31.07.1990. +1 more

Court's answer

Adopting the very same approach as the Full Bench, this Court sustains the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

The issue raised in the writ appeal is no longer res integra, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court having settled it by order dated 05.03.2021 in W.A.(MD)No.201 of 2021.

Key takeaways

The writ appeal stands dismissed, with no costs.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (G.R. Swaminathan and R. Kalaimathi JJ.; judgment by G.R. Swaminathan, J.) — Writ Appeal under Clause XV of Letters Patent against Single Judge's order dated 09.10.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.15233 of 2014 — DISMISSED, no costs. Appellant, appointed Vocational Instructor on 13.01.2009, had claimed higher pay scale on parity with employees covered by G.O.(Ms)No.840 (Pay Commission Department) dated 31.07.1990. Division Bench held the issue no longer res integra in view of the Hon'ble Full Bench order dated 05.03.2021 in W.A.(MD)No.201 of 2021, which laid down that vocational instructors recruited through the Teachers Recruitment Board for posts created vide G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 18.05.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 13.03.2007, governed by G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 04.01.2000, are not entitled to parity of pay scale with double part-time vocational instructors regularised under G.O.Ms.No.967 dated 16.10.1992; 'equal pay for equal work' requires complete/wholesale identity of the comparator sets — mere overlapping of duties is insufficient. Adopting that approach, the Division Bench sustained the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal.

A

W.A.(MD)No.429 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 03.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

W.A.(MD)No.429 of 2021

M.R.Ravichandran

... Appellant

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2.The Director of School Education, O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai - 6.

3.The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational), O/o.The Joint Director, DPI Campus, Chennai – 6.

4.M.Maheswaran ... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.15233 of 2014 dated 09.10.2020 on the file of this Court.

1/6

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

W.A.(MD)No.429 of 2021

For Appellant : Mr.G.Karthik, For Mr.S.Rajasekar.

For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan,

Government Advocate for R1 to R3.

JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

The unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal. The

writ petitioner was appointed as Vocational Instructor on 13.01.2009 in a Government Higher Secondary School. The appellant contended that his pay was erroneously fixed. Seeking higher pay scale on parity with employees covered by G.O.(Ms)No.840 Fiance (Pay Commission) Department dated 31.07.1990, the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.15233 of 2014. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.10.2020 dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

2.It is fairly brought to our notice that the issue raised in this writ appeal is no longer res integra . The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.03.2021 in W.A.(MD)No.201 of 2021 had held as follows:-

2/6

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

W.A.(MD)No.429 of 2021

“16.The legal position no longer admits of any doubt. Certain anomalies may arise in specific cases. There cannot be perfect equality in any matter on an absolute scientific basis and there may be certain inequities here and there (Para 5 in H.P.Gupta and another Vs Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 658). Grant of the benefit of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” depends upon a large number of factors including equal work, equal value, source and manner of appointment, equal identity of group and wholesale or complete identity (Para 24 in State of Punjab Vs Surjit Singh and others, (2009) 9 SCC 514). If this test of complete or wholesale identity is applied, the respondents have to necessarily fail. The respondents were recruited under a particular G.O which created a separate class of posts with a specified pay scale governed by statutory Ad hoc rules. Both G.Narayansamy as well as Vasimalai were regularised before the coming into force of the Ad hoc rules. They were not recruited under G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 18.05.1999. They do not belong to the class to which the respondents herein were appointed. It is true that the respondents are discharging the same duties and responsibilities discharged by G.Narayanasamy and Vasimalai. But that cannot be the sole criterion to determine the issue. A mathematical analogy may clarify better. G.Narayanasamy and Vasimalai constitute a 'set'. The respondents constitute another 'set'. If we super-impose one on the other, and a complete and wholesale identity obtains, then a case for parity is made out and not otherwise. Mere overlapping is not sufficient. In the present

3/6

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

W.A.(MD)No.429 of 2021

case there is only overlapping and no complete / wholesale identity.

20.To reiterate, vocational instructors recruited through the Teachers Recruitment Board for the posts created vide G.O.Ms.No. 129, dated 18.05.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 13.03.2007, who are governed by G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 04.01.2000 are not entitled to claim parity of pay scale with those appointed initially as double part-time vocational instructors and who were subsequently regularised under G.O.Ms.No.967, dated 16.10.1992.”

3.Adopting the very same approach, we sustain the order of the

learned Single Judge and the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.K.M. J.,) 03.02.2026

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

4/6

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

W.A.(MD)No.429 of 2021

To:

1.The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2.The Director of School Education, O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai - 6.

3.The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational), O/o.The Joint Director, DPI Campus, Chennai - 6.

5/6

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

W.A.(MD)No.429 of 2021

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and R.KALAIMATHI, J.

ias

W.A.(MD)No.429 of 2021

03.02.2026

6/6

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the appellant, appointed as Vocational Instructor on 13.01.2009, was entitled to a higher pay scale on parity with employees covered by G.O.(Ms)No.840 (Pay Commission Department) dated 31.07.1990.¶23
The court held
Adopting the very same approach as the Full Bench, this Court sustains the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.ratio¶34
2.
Whether the appellant's parity claim satisfies the test of complete or wholesale identity required under the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, as laid down in the Full Bench order in W.A.(MD)No.201 of 2021.medium confidence¶28

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

W.A.(MD)No.201 of 2021Followed¶24
H.P.Gupta and another Vs Union of IndiaReferred¶28
H.P.Gupta and another Vs Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 658 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab Vs Surjit Singh and othersReferred¶28
State of Punjab Vs Surjit Singh and others, (2009) 9 SCC 514 · Who else cites this

Statutes considered

6 provisions across 6 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause XV¶14
Fiance (Pay Commission) Department [as printed; apparent typo for 'Finance']No.840 dated 31.07.1990¶23
G.O.Ms.No. 129, dated 18.05.1999No.129 dated 18.05.1999¶33
G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 13.03.2007

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 09.10.2020 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.15233 of 2014 dismissing the writ petition seeking higher pay scale, sought to be set aside by this writ appeal.¶23
Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (learned Single Judge) · 09.10.2020
Prior proceeding
Appellant was appointed as Vocational Instructor on 13.01.2009 in a Government Higher Secondary School.¶23
Prior proceeding
Appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.15233 of 2014 seeking higher pay scale on parity with employees covered by G.O.(Ms)No.840 (Pay Commission Department) dated 31.07.1990, contending his pay was erroneously fixed.¶23
Prior proceeding
The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, by order dated 05.03.2021 in W.A.(MD)No.201 of 2021, held the issue no longer res integra.¶24
Prior proceeding
Full Bench concluded that vocational instructors recruited through the Teachers Recruitment Board for posts created vide G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 18.05.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 13.03.2007, governed by G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 04.01.2000, are not entitled to claim parity of pay scale with those initially appointed as double part-time vocational instructors and subsequently regularised under G.O.Ms.No.967 dated 16.10.1992.¶33
Prior proceeding
Full Bench found that in the case before it there was only overlapping and no complete / wholesale identity between the comparator sets, so the parity claim failed.¶32

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
M.R.Ravichandran¶7
G.Karthik, S.Rajasekar
respondent
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.¶10
T.Amjadkhan
respondent
The Director of School Education, O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai - 6.¶11
T.Amjadkhan
respondent
The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational), O/o.The Joint Director, DPI Campus, Chennai – 6.¶12
T.Amjadkhan
respondent
M.Maheswaran¶13

Coram

AI extract

G.R.SWAMINATHANauthor¶21
R.KALAIMATHImember¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 3 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 22 Feb 2021
Case no.: WA(MD)/429/2021
CNR: HCMD010094482021
Bench: G.r.swaminathan R. Kalaimathi
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: W.A.(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.r.swaminathan R. Kalaimathi

The Tamil Nadu Judicial Vs the Commissioner of Treasuries
2 Feb 2026
I.K. Manonmani, Vs The Registrar
2 Feb 2026
U.Muthulakshmi Vs G.Raman
2 Feb 2026
S. Flora Stella, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu
3 Feb 2026
Ayyappan.K Vs The District Collector
3 Feb 2026
Ayyappan.C Vs The District Collector
3 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

M.R.Ravichandran v. the State of Tamil Nadu, WA(MD)/429/2021 (MAD), decided on 3 February 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited3

W.A.(MD)No.201 of 2021Followed¶24
H.P.Gupta and another Vs Union of IndiaReferred¶28
State of Punjab Vs Surjit Singh and othersReferred¶28

Open Authorities

Statutes6

Letters PatentClause XV
Fiance (Pay Commission) Department [as printed; apparent typo for 'Finance']No.840 dated 31.07.1990
G.O.Ms.No. 129, dated 18.05.1999No.129 dated 18.05.1999
G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 13.03.2007No.63 dated 13.03.2007

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Order dated 09.10.2020 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.15233 of 2014 dismissing the writ petition seeking higher pay scale, sought to be set aside by this writ appeal.Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (learned Single Judge) · 09.10.2020
Appellant was appointed as Vocational Instructor on 13.01.2009 in a Government Higher Secondary School.
Appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.15233 of 2014 seeking higher pay scale on parity with employees covered by G.O.(Ms)No.840 (Pay Commission Department) dated 31.07.1990, contending his pay was erroneously fixed.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.R.SWAMINATHAN and R.KALAIMATHI

Parties & counsel

No.63 dated 13.03.2007¶33

G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 04.01.2000No.6 dated 04.01.2000¶33

G.O.Ms.No.967, dated 16.10.1992No.967 dated 16.10.1992¶33