G.O.Ms.No.340 does not extend pay-refixation benefits to employees appointed after 02.06.2009.

The respondent, P. Kathirvel, filed W.P. No. 11438 of 2024 seeking re-fixation of pay and allowances by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010.

The learned Single Judge passed an order dated 18.07.2024 in favour of the respondent, which was challenged by the State of Tamil Nadu, the Finance Department, and the Director of School Education through the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

During the pendency of the appeal, the Division Bench considered the issue to be settled by its decision in The State of Tamil Nadu & Others v. D. Mageswari & Others, reported as 2026:MHC:2169.

Whether the respondent was entitled to re-fixation of pay and allowances by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.340, dated 26.08.2010.

Whether the order dated 18.07.2024 in W.P.No.11438 of 2024 could be sustained in light of the Division Bench decision in D. Mageswari concerning the scope and applicability of G.O.Ms.No.340.

The Court applied G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010, which was issued pursuant to the One Man Commission’s recommendation to address the grievance of a specific group of employees affected by administrative delay in the issuance of appointment orders.

The Court relied on The State of Tamil Nadu & Others v. D. Mageswari & Others, 2026:MHC:2169, holding that employees appointed after 02.06.2009 and whose pay was fixed under the rules prevailing on their dates of appointment could not claim parity with contract employees appointed in 2003 and later absorbed into regular service through a Special Competitive Examination.

Earlier decisions granting similar relief were held inapplicable where they had not considered the scope of G.O.Ms.No.340 or the distinction between the two categories of employees.

The Court treated the issue as no longer res integra because it had been authoritatively considered in D. Mageswari.

Applying that decision, the Court recognised that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.340 was intended to remedy the specific disadvantage suffered by contract employees appointed in 2003 who were subsequently regularised after administrative delay, and not to confer a general pay advantage on employees appointed after 02.06.2009.

Since the respondent’s claim for pay re-fixation was governed by the same legal issue, the Single Judge’s order granting relief could not be sustained.

The Court also declined to follow earlier contrary orders because they had not examined the relevant factual distinction or the true scope of the Government Order.

The respondent was therefore denied the claimed re-fixation of pay and allowances under G.O.Ms.No.340.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed.