N MATHIVANAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he had joined as a Typist, on 9.12.71. He became qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant, on 16.5.76, by passing all the requisite tests. Based on his qualification, he was promoted as an Assistant, on 23.7.79. THE petitioner was drawing the annual increment, for every year, in the month of October. Since the petitioner had got his promotion, on 23.7.79, he had made a representation to the respondent to pay the salary due to him in the higher post of Assistant only from the month of October 1979, so as to enable him to earn his annual increment in the lower post, on 1.10.79, before fixing his pay in the promoted post. THE petitioner's request was rejected by the second respondent, on 30.8.79.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position to deny the claims made by the petitioner by placing before this Court the necessary records relating to the matter. However, he had stated that it is seen from the communication of the Additional Secretary to the Government, Home (Ser.G), Department, dated 12.7.92, Chennai, that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Typist, whereas his junior, R.Savithri, was promoted as an Assistant from the post of Junior Assistant and as such the conditions laid down in Ruling (2) under F.R.22(B) for stepping up the pay of the senior, on par with the junior are not satisfied.