Government must reconsider employees’ pay-parity representations on their merits and in accordance with law.

The petitioners sought pay and post parity with K.R. Balasubramanian, whom they claimed was their junior and had been allotted to the Finance Unit following a common recruitment.

They relied on Government Orders addressing pay anomalies between employees allotted to the Finance Unit and other departments, and on representations dated 05.01.2007 and 27.01.2022.

The State opposed the claim, contending that the petitioners were recruited after the 28.01.1994 cut-off and were therefore outside the scope of the relevant Government Orders; it also relied on decisions upholding the Government’s power to prescribe a cut-off date.

The petitioners sought a direction to consider their representations.

Whether the petitioners’ claim for pay parity, despite their appointment after 28.01.1994, could be reconsidered by the respondents in light of G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 01.03.2017.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus.

The Government Orders concerning the separate Finance Unit and pay-anomaly measures—particularly G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 28.01.1994, G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 29.05.1998, G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 30.10.2009, and G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 01.03.2017—formed the administrative framework for the dispute.

The State cited decisions upholding a cut-off date, but the Court did not determine their application or decide the petitioners’ entitlement; it directed consideration of the representations on their merits and in accordance with law.

The Court noted that the material factual background was not seriously disputed and identified the question as whether the petitioners’ claim could be reconsidered notwithstanding their appointment after the cut-off date.

Given the petitioners’ assertion that they were senior to the Finance Unit employee and the circumstances of their claim, the Court considered that their representations required examination.

It did not resolve the competing arguments on the cut-off date or hold that the petitioners were entitled to parity; it left those matters for the respondents to decide under the applicable law.

No costs were awarded.