Similarly placed vocational instructors are entitled to pay-scale parity, with arrears limited to periods actually served.

The petitioner was appointed as a double part-time Vocational Instructor (Insurance) on 15 July 1985, terminated in 1989, and reappointed in 2005 after earlier proceedings.

In W.P. No. 221 of 2008, the High Court directed regularisation from 16 October 1992, without monetary benefits for the period he had not worked; the Division Bench upheld that order in W.A.(MD) No. 363 of 2016.

The Government subsequently regularised his service from 16 October 1992 under G.O.(Ms) No. 53 dated 4 March 2020.

The petitioner later challenged that Government Order and a 2023 rejection of his representation, seeking regularisation from 15 July 1985 and monetary benefits, including parity in pay with other Vocational Instructors.

1. Whether the petitioner could reopen the date of regularisation and claim arrears for a period during which he did not work, notwithstanding the earlier orders in W.P. No. 221 of 2008 and W.A.(MD) No. 363 of 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to parity in the revised pay scale of Rs. 2000–3500 and consequential pay and pension benefits, despite the respondents’ objection that the relevant Government Order applied only to Agriculture Instructors.

3. Whether the petitioner’s claim was barred by laches.

A determination of the effective date of regularisation, once affirmed in appeal, cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings; the same finality applied to the denial of pay for a period during which the employee did not work, under the “no work, no pay” principle.

The Court applied the pay-parity principle reflected in Article 14 read with Article 39(d), as discussed in G. Narayanasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P. No. 32121 of 2006, and followed in M.V. Sundaram v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.(MD) No. 13695 of 2024, in extending the revised scale to a similarly placed double part-time Vocational Instructor holding a B.Com. degree.

It distinguished G. John Victor v. Principal Secretary to Government, W.A.(MD) Nos. 1313 of 2023, where laches was applied to employees who approached the Court eight years after retirement; the petitioner’s continuous litigation weighed against applying laches here.

The petitioner’s request for regularisation from 15 July 1985 was foreclosed by the 2014 order fixing regularisation from 16 October 1992, as affirmed on appeal.

Likewise, he could not recover arrears for 16 October 1992 to 17 June 2005, when he had not worked, because the earlier appellate decision had affirmed the application of “no work, no pay.”

However, the Court found that the petitioner was similarly placed to instructors who had received the revised scale and rejected the distinction based on his B.Com. degree, relying on M.V. Sundaram.

It also held that laches did not defeat the pay-parity claim because the petitioner had been litigating since his 1989 ouster, unlike the appellants in G. John Victor.

The Court rejected the claim for regularisation from 15 July 1985 and for arrears during the period from 16 October 1992 to 17 June 2005.

It quashed G.O.(Ms) No. 53 only insofar as it limited the petitioner’s pay to the scale under G.O.Ms. No. 967, and directed notional refixation in the revised scale of Rs. 2000–3500 from 16 October 1992, with applicable subsequent revisions up to retirement on 31 May 2017.

The respondents must pay the salary difference for the period actually worked, 17 June 2005 to 31 May 2017, and revise the petitioner’s pension and other terminal benefits, adjusting sums already paid, within 12 weeks of receiving the order.