C LAKSHMANAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari cum Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the First Respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.40631/A3/2004 dated 25.11.2004 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to step up the scale of pay of the Petitioner on par with that of his junior G.Subramaniyam and confer all consequential benefits.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that he joined as B.T. Headmaster of Middle School on 08.12.1972 at the Panchayat Union Middle School, Saminaickenpatty, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. He states that his services were regularised in the cadre of BT Headmaster of Middle School. He further states that he continued in the same school until 14.07.1995 in the same post. He, thereafter, acquired a M.A. degree in 1987 and a M.Ed. degree in 1989 and was, therefore, sanctioned two sets of incentive increments. In view of the fact that the Panchayat Union School was taken over by the Education Department on 14.07.1995, he was posted as an Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer on 14.07.1995 at Kadayampatti Union, Salem District. He states that he served as an Assistant Elementary Education Officer in various unions and that he reached the age of superannuation on 30.04.2003 and continued under extension of service until 31.05.2003.

(3.) He further states that a junior called G.Subramaniyam joined as B.T. Headmaster of Middle School on 10.02.1975 and that he acquired the higher qualification of M.Ed. in 1997 and M.A. in 2000 and was also sanctioned incentive increments for the above higher qualifications. However, the said junior was sanctioned incentive increments as per the sixth pay commission whereas the Petitioner was sanctioned incentive increments as per the fourth and fifth pay commission. As a result, the said junior was drawing higher pay than the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner made representations to step up his pay on a par with that of his junior on 17.06.2004 to the Second Respondent. However, the said representation was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner and the said junior worked in different unions and therefore there is no provision for stepping up the Petitioner's scale of pay on a par with that of his junior. The Order dated 25.11.2004 of the First Respondent refusing to step up the scale of pay of the Petitioner on a par with that of his junior is the Impugned Order in this Writ Petition.