P.Gajapathy vs The Commissioner

Court
Madras High Court

WP No. 33167 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 33167 of 2022
and
WMP No. 32573 of 2022
P.Gajapathy,
S/o. Perumal,
P.G. Assistant Government Higher
Secondary School,
Kunnakulathur Madurantakam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner,
Education Department,
DPI Campus,
Chennai 600 006.
2. Joint Director of School Education,
(NSS)
DPI Campus,
Chennai- 600 006
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Chengalpattu District.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd
Respondent in OO.Moo No. 038033 / L / E5 / 22 dated 02.07.2022 and quash
the same and consequently direct the Respondents herein to step up the pay of
the petitioner on part with his Junior Rajavelu with effect from 18.11.2019.
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:51 pm )

WP No. 33167 of 2022
WP No. 33167 of 2022
For Petitioner(s): Ms.Suneetha
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Sivalingam,
Govt. Advocate
Order
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.07.2022
and consequently, direct the respondents to step up the pay of the petitioner on
par with his Junior Rajavelu with effect from 18.11.2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was
awarded selection grade on 07.02.2007 and was promoted to the post of P.G.
Assistant on 08.10.2007. However, his junior was promoted to the post of
B.T.Assistant on a later date i.e.,on 16.07.2008. While his junior was promoted
from B.T.Assistant to P.G. Assistant, there was pay anomaly to this petitioner
and the pay of the petitioner is lesser than the pay received by his junior. In this
connection, he has given a representation to the Department and based on the
nd st
representation, the 2 respondent has already sent a proposal to the 1
respondent on 19.05.2022.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
st
notwithstanding the settled legal principles, the 1 respondent rejected the
proposal. In support of his case, he would rely upon the judgment of the learned
single Judge passed in W.P.No.34321 of 2022 ( S.B.Meera vs. State of
Tamilnadu) , 2025::MHC::1161, wherein the learned single Judge, after relying
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:51 pm )

WP No. 33167 of 2022
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2007(6) SCC 524
(State of Kerala vs. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai), directed the authorities to
reconsider the proposal in the light of the above judgment.
4. Though the learned Government Advocate, in all fairness, would
submit that the present case is identical to the facts of the case in S.B.Meera vs.
State of Tamilnadu cited supra, however, would contend that the petitioner’s
pay at every level was lower than his junior pay and therefore, the question of
stepping up of pay on par with his junior, does not arise, at this length of time.
Hence, he would pray to dismiss the writ petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
6. Learned Government Advocate, in all fairness, would submit that the
facts involved in the instant case is identical to the case relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in S.B.Meera vs. State of Tamil Nadu
reported in 2005::MHC1161 . In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. P.Jagdish and
Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 1783, wherein at paragraph No.7, it is held as
follows:
'7. Admittedly, the respondents had been promoted earlier
to the category of Head Clerks and some of their juniors who
were continuing as senior Clerks against the identified posts
carrying special pay of Rs. 35/- per month on being promoted to
the post of Head Clerks later than the respondents got their pay
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:51 pm )

WP No. 33167 of 2022
fixed at higher level than the respondents. Under the provisions of
fundamental Rules to remove the anomaly of a Government
servant promoted or appointed to a higher post earlier drawing a
lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant
junior to him in the lower grade promoted or appointed
subsequently to the higher post, the principle of stepping up of the
pay is applied. In such cases the pay of the senior officer in the
higher post is required to be stepped up to a figure equal to the
pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping
up is required to be done with effect from the date of promotion or
appointment of the junior officer. On refixation of the pay of the
senior officer by applying the principle of stepping up the next
increment of the said officer would be drawn on completion of the
requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of the
refixation of pay. This principle becomes applicable when the
junior officer and the senior officer belong to the same category
and the post from which they have been promoted and in the
promoted cadre the junior officer on being promoted later than
the senior officer gets a higher pay. This being the principle of
stepping up contained in the Fundamental Rules and admittedly
the respondents being seniors to several other Senior Clerks and
the respondents having been promoted earlier than many of their
juniors who were promoted later to the post of Head Clerks, the
principle of stepping up should be made applicable to the
respondents with effect from the date their juniors in the erstwhile
cadre of Senior Clerks get promoted to the cadre of Head Clerks
and their pay was fixed at a higher slab than that of the
respondent. The stepping up should be done in such a way that the
anomaly in juniors getting higher salary than the senior in the
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:51 pm )

WP No. 33167 of 2022
promoted category of Head Clerk would be removed and the pay
of the seniors like the respondents would be stepped up to a figure
equal to the pay as fixed for their junior officer in the higher post
of Head Clerk. In fact the Tribunal by the impugned order has
directed to apply the principle of stepping up and we see no
infirmity with the same direction subject to the aforesaid
clarifications.
This principle of stepping up which we have upheld would
prevent violation of equal pay for equal work but grant of
consequential benefit of the difference of salary would not be
correct for the reason that the respondents had not worked in the
posts to which 35% special pay was attached in the lower cadre.
But by reason of promotion the promote-juniors who worked on
the said posts, infact, performed the hard duties and earned
special pay. Direction to pay arrears would be deleterious to
inculcation of efficiency in service. All persons who were indolent
to share higher responsibilities in lower posts, on promotion
would get accelerated arrears that would be deleterious to
efficiency of service. Therefore, though direction to step up the
pay on notional basis is consistent with Article 39(d) of the
Constitution, it would be applicable only perceptively (sic) from
the date of the promotion and the fixation of the scale stepping up
of scale to pay would be perspective(sic) to calculate future
increments on the scale of pay in promotional post only
perspectively.'
7. In the above judgment it is held that wherever there is pay anomaly
and if the pay drawn by a senior is lesser than the pay received by a junior,
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:51 pm )

WP No. 33167 of 2022
then, the pay needs to be stepped up.
8. In this case, admittedly, there is no special qualification acquired by the
junior of the petitioner to have more pay. The relevant portion of S.B.Meera’s
case is followed and in paragraph No.10 of the aforesaid judgment, it is held as
under.
10. Thus, it can be seen that if the pay drawn by the
senior is lesser on account of any special qualification that is
being obtained by the junior or by virtue of any additional
ability of junior, then the pay need not be stepped up. In the
instant case, the petitioner is also possessing post graduate
degree as well as B.Ed. qualification and has drawn two
incentive increments. The junior is also possessing same post
graduate degree qualification and is drawing two increments.
Merely because the junior obtained post graduate degree and
B.Ed. qualification at a later date and under the revised scale
of pay, the junior is granted an increment amount which is
higher in terms of money it results in pay anomaly.
9. After referring to the above judgment, the learned single Judge has
ultimately held in para.11 as follows:
11. From the above, it can be seen that only from 30.12.2010, pay
anomaly came into existence. Both the pay and the revised pay are higher.
It can be seen that earlier rule position takes this into account and
categorically states that if the junior is given advance increment under
revised pay, the quantum of which is more than the senior's pay, it should
be stepped up whereas in the year 2017, that position has not been
adverted to at all. In any event, it can be seen that for the anomaly in the
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:51 pm )

WP No. 33167 of 2022
year 2010, 2017 Rules cannot be made applicable in support thereof to
the pay anomaly de hors what is contained in the relevant revised pay
rules, it is only Fundamental Rules which goes into the question. The
basic rule is that when the junior and senior are travelling on the same
route in the same position and are given the same promotion like the two
rails of the same route, suddenly one rail cannot go in advance. If that is
kept in mind in this case it cannot be said that the junior drew more pay
only because of some additional or special qualification which she
obtained but only because of the implementation of the revised pay rules.
The very rule with regard to stepping up of pay is only to ameliorate this
kind of hardship which arise with the senior. Therefore, I am of the view
that the petitioner's case deserves acceptance. The reasons mentioned in
the impugned order are also erroneous. Therefore, apart from the reasons
mentioned in the impugned order when this Court has found positively
that the petitioner is entitled for stepping up of pay, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed in the following terms:
11.1 The impugned order dated 04.03.2022 passed
by the fourth respondent is set aside;
11.2 The respondents shall consider the proposal of
the fifth respondent herein dated 20.08.2019 afresh because
the petitioner is on lesser pay with effect from 30.12.2010,
accordingly redress the grievance of the petitioner by
stepping up of pay on par with this junior to Rs.22,260/-
with effect from 30.12.2010 and accordingly re-fix the pay of
the petitioner and grant him all benefits. Needless to say that
the petitioner will be entitled for the actual arrears with
effect from the date of filing of writ petition, as per the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and
Ors. Vs. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai reported in (2007) 6 SCC
524 the petitioner shall be entitled for the arrears from the
date of filing of the writ petition i.e., 19.12.2022;
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:51 pm )

WP No. 33167 of 2022
11.3 The said exercise shall be carried out by the respondents
within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10. Since the present case is similar to that of the case relied upon by the
petitioner, this Court finds sufficient reason to quash the impugned order dated
st
02.07.2022. However, this Court would like to remit back the matter to the 1
nd
respondent to consider the proposal of the 2 respondent dated 19.05.2022
afresh by taking into consideration, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai reported in ( 2007)6 SCC
524 and if any monetary relief, the petitioner is entitled for arrears only from
st
the date of filing of this writ petition i.e., 07.12.2022. The 1 respondent shall
carry out the said exercise within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the
receipt of a copy of this order.
11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03-09-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking
Neutral Citation: Yes
vsi
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:51 pm )

WP No. 33167 of 2022
To
1. The Commissioner,
Education Department DPI Campus,
Chennai 600 006
2. Joint Director of School Education,
(NSS) DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Chengalpattu District
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:51 pm )

WP No. 33167 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
vsi
WP No. 33167 of 2022
and
WMP No. 32573 of 2022
03-09-2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:51 pm )