Government must independently adjudicate pay anomaly claims by applying service rules regardless of prior judicial observations.

The respondents (original writ petitioners) were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers in 1996 and 1997. Following ten years of service, they were awarded Selection Grade and subsequently promoted to Primary School Headmasters in 2012.

They alleged a pay anomaly where their juniors were receiving higher pay. Although the authorities initially considered their claim for "stepping up of pay" to match their juniors, the orders were later cancelled, leading the respondents to file W.P.No.13232 of 2016.

The Writ Court granted relief on 23.01.2023, which the State challenged in this Writ Appeal.

The State argued that the respondents lost seniority upon transferring between Panchayat Unions, disqualifying them from pay stepping-up under relevant service rules.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in granting relief for stepping up of pay without verifying the specific service particulars and the applicability of the Fundamental Rules.

2. Whether the dispute regarding pay anomaly and financial implications should be decided primarily by the Government as the final authority.

Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service Rules, which governs seniority and the effects of inter-union transfers.

Fundamental Rules (F.R.) 22B and 27, which stipulate the specific requirements and conditions under which a senior's pay can be "stepped up" to match a junior’s.

Precedent set by the Division Bench in V.K. Kannan vs. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai [W.A.(MD) Nos.764 to 773 of 2023], which established that the Government is the final authority to decide financial matters involving large-scale implications and should do so by applying relevant rules to the merits of individual cases.

The Court observed that the learned Single Judge granted relief to the respondents without a thorough verification of the requirements under F.R. 22B and 27 or the impact of Rule 9 regarding the loss of seniority on transfer.

Following the logic in the V.K. Kannan precedent, the Court reasoned that the High Court should not bypass the executive's role in complex financial matters.

Instead of deciding on the merits of the pay anomaly itself, the Court held that the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, is the appropriate authority to verify service particulars and apply the law independently.

The Court determined that the original order must be set aside to allow the Government to perform this merit-based evaluation uninfluenced by the previous judicial observations.

The Court directed the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, to decide the issue of pay anomaly on its merits in accordance with law by verifying service particulars and applying the relevant rules independently.