S.AROCKIYA NIRMAL RAJAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned order of the second respondent dated 20.03.2014 by which the request of the petitioner to remove the anomaly and to pay salary on par with his junior by name N.Rajeshwari and step up the petitioner's pay in the cadre of B.T. Assistant with effect from 01.07.2008 and to grant him all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was originally appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Keelapannaikulam, Muthukulathur Union, Ramanad District on 22.07.1999. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as B.T. Assistant by recruitment by transfer on 27.11.2006. One Tmt.N.Rajeswari was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant in the Primary section of the Corporation School in the year 1995. however, it is submitted by the petitioner that the said Tmt.N.Rajeswari was promoted as B.T. Assistant only on 01.07.2008 by recruitment by transfer. Stating that the petitioner's appointment in the post of B.T. Assistant was from 2006 whereas the appointment of the said Tmt.N.Rajeswari was only in 2008, the petitioner submitted a representation that he is entitled to at least the same pay as Tmt.N.Rajeswari is drawing in the same post. It appears that the representation was not considered earlier therefore, the petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7834 of 2013 seeking a direction to the respondent to remove the pay anomaly. This Court directed the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. Even thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to file yet another Writ Petition in W.P.No.18030 of 2013 to direct the respondents to rectify the anomaly of junior drawing more pay than the petitioner and step up pay of the petitioner on par with his junior. It is admitted that in the meanwhile, the corporation has passed the impugned order. Hence, the earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.18030 of 2013 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the impugned order of the first respondent. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is filed by the Teacher to quash the impugned order and to direct the first respondent to rectify the anomaly of junior drawing more pay than senior and to step up the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior by name Tmt.N.Rajeswari.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the representation of the petitioner was turned down by the respondents primarily on three grounds which are not sustainable in law. From the impugned order, it is seen that the representation of the petitioner for removal of pay anomaly comparing his pay with that of his junior Tmt.N.Rajeswari was turned down mainly on the ground that the said N.Rajeshwari joined in service as Secondary Grade Teacher on 28.05.1995 and received selection grade pay in the same scale and that the said Tmt.N.Rajeswari was entitled to receive two incentive increments for acquiring higher qualification in M.A., B.Ed., on 27.01.2008. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant in 2006 whereas Tmt.N.Rajeswari was appointed by transfer only on 01.07.2008. It is also submitted that the petitioner acquired higher qualification long prior to 2002 and was receiving two incentive increments that means four increment at the rate of Rs.125/- with effect from 2002 after acquiring higher qualification. Tmt.N.Rajeswari acquired higher qualification much later on 27.01.2008. Since the petitioner got higher qualification and consequential monetary benefits even with effect from 2002, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the reasons stated by the first respondent in the impugned order that Tmt.N.Rajeswari was given incentive increments from 27.01.2008 is not appropriate.