Stepping up of pay is impermissible where senior and junior belong to different cadres and pay scales.

The appellant was appointed as a Post Graduate (PG) Assistant on 03.06.1991 and later promoted to Headmistress on 01.06.2010.

Following the grant of annual increments and pay fixation, the appellant sought a re-fixation of her pay based on G.O.Ms.237 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 22.07.2013, claiming her pay should be on par with certain "juniors".

The District Educational Officer, Tiruvallur, rejected this proposal on 13.04.2015, asserting she was ineligible under the relevant rules.

The appellant challenged this rejection via W.P.No.5146 of 2015, which was dismissed by the Writ Court on 01.06.2023.

The present Writ Appeal was filed to set aside that order.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to the stepping up of pay on par with a junior under Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, and relevant Government Orders when the parties belong to different cadres.

2. Whether there is any legal infirmity in the Writ Court's order dated 01.06.2023 justifying interference in the appeal.

Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, which governs the re-fixation of pay for seniors on par with juniors.

G.O.Ms.No.237 Finance (Pay Cell) Department (22.07.2013) and G.0.Ms.No.25 (23.03.2015), which establish that the "stepping up" of pay is only permissible when both the senior and the junior belong to the same cadre and draw pay in identical pay scales.

The Court observed that for a claim of pay parity (stepping up) to succeed, the claimant and the junior must occupy the same post and cadre.

The appellant was promoted to the higher post of Headmistress in 2010, whereas the individual she cited as a "junior" remained in the lower cadre of Post Graduate Assistant.

The Court reasoned that an employee in a higher cadre (Headmistress) cannot claim pay parity with a subordinate in a different cadre (PG Assistant) simply because the subordinate's pay was re-fixed under specific rules.

The Court further noted that pay fixation is a complex administrative matter and, since the appellant failed to fulfill the criteria laid down in G.O.Ms.No.234 or G.O.25, the District Educational Officer's rejection was valid.

The High Court affirmed the findings of the Writ Court and found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the Writ Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.