High Court is Competent Authority to adjudicate pay parity and anomaly issues within Judicial Service.

The Petitioner, N. Kathirvelu, filed a Writ Petition seeking a re-fixation of his pay at Rs. 83,800/- to match the pay of his junior, M. Velmurugan (Respondent No. 7), effective from his date of joining as Sherishtadar.

The Petitioner challenged an order dated 08.08.2023 issued by the 4th Respondent (District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai) which denied this parity.

During the proceedings, the Registrar General of the Madras High Court filed a counter-affidavit addressing the competency of the authorities to resolve such pay anomalies.

1. Whether the High Court is the competent authority to decide issues regarding pay parity and anomalies for persons working in the Judicial Service.

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to pay fixation on par with his junior despite the initial denial by the 4th Respondent.

G.O.Ms.No.896, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.-I) Department, dated 10.09.1986, which delegates powers to Heads of Departments to address pay fixation issues, subject to Government ratification within one month.

In the context of judicial service, the Court affirmed the principle that the High Court remains the competent authority to resolve pay parity or anomalies among its staff.

The Court examined the counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar General (2nd Respondent), which identified the High Court as the appropriate body to adjudicate the Petitioner’s claim under the delegated powers of the 1986 Government Order.

While the 2nd Respondent’s affidavit briefly alluded to reasons for the Petitioner's ineligibility in earlier internal assessments, the Court observed that the Competent Authority had not yet formally decided the specific merits of the case in a final administrative capacity.

Consequently, the Court determined that rather than adjudicating the technical pay details itself, the matter should be remitted to the Competent Authority for an independent and expedited review based on the Petitioner's service records.

The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to submit a fresh representation and supporting documents to the Competent Authority. All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.