Madras HC Rejects Secretariat Officer’s Bid To Match Junior’s Pay, Citing Different Promotion Levels Across Departments

The petitioner entered the Secretariat service as a Junior Assistant in 1984 and was promoted through various posts, ultimately becoming Deputy Secretary in August 2011; she superannuated on 30 November 2012.

She claimed that her pay should be upgraded and stepped up to match that of junior employees serving in the Finance Department, relying on specified Government Orders concerning employees allotted to different departments following bifurcation.

The respondent rejected her representation by an order dated 19 March 2013. She challenged that decision under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought pay parity with effect from 1 December 2010, along with consequential benefits.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It construed those Government Orders as relating to pay increases for employees allotted to different departments following bifurcation, and not as authorising a further equal-pay adjustment in the circumstances of this case.

The Court accepted the respondent’s position that the petitioner’s proposed comparison was not legally sustainable because the employees she identified had obtained promotion in the Finance Department and were receiving higher pay on that basis; the petitioner had not reached the corresponding level in her own service.

It further held that the Government Orders relied upon concerned the pay adjustment following departmental allotment, which had already been effected; they did not entitle the petitioner to a second adjustment by reference to the subsequent pay of employees in another department.

It dismissed the writ petition and made no order as to costs.