Typists appointed after 1 April 2013 are not entitled to higher-start pay under the discontinued scheme.

The petitioner was provisionally selected for appointment as a Typist through the TNPSC recruitment for 2012–2013.

He was called for certificate verification/counselling on 29 April 2013 and appointed on 28 June 2013.

He sought the higher start of pay at two stages above the minimum scale, available under G.O.Ms.No.321 dated 2 July 1998 to eligible graduates, but his request was rejected because he was appointed after the 1 April 2013 cut-off prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.241 dated 22 July 2013.

He challenged that Government Order and the consequential rejection, alleging arbitrary denial of pay parity.

The respondents opposed the claim on the basis of the cut-off date and relied on the Division Bench decision in The Government of Tamil Nadu v. D. Cholaraju.

1. Whether the petitioner, appointed as a Typist on 28 June 2013, was entitled to the higher start of pay under G.O.Ms.No.321 despite the 1 April 2013 cut-off in G.O.Ms.No.241.

2. Whether the petitioner could claim the benefit by relying on decisions concerning candidates whose selection process had been completed before the cut-off date but whose appointments were delayed.

G.O.Ms.No.321, Finance Department, dated 2 July 1998 provided for a higher initial pay for eligible persons with higher qualifications appointed to specified posts; G.O.Ms.No.241, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22 July 2013 discontinued that benefit from 1 April 2013, limiting its continued availability to qualifying persons appointed before that date.

The Division Bench in The Government of Tamil Nadu v. D. Cholaraju, W.A.No.220 of 2026, held that selection alone does not confer entitlement to service benefits and that the date of appointment is the relevant date for claiming this pay benefit; an erroneous grant in another case does not create a right to equal treatment in error.

The Court distinguished The Secretary to Government v. M. Praveena and The Government of Tamil Nadu v. A. Rehana, which concerned candidates whose selection process had been completed before the cut-off and whose appointment was subsequently delayed.

The Court found that, as of 1 April 2013, the petitioner’s recruitment process had not been completed: he was only provisionally selected and was called for certificate verification/counselling on 29 April 2013.

He was appointed on 28 June 2013, after the cut-off.

Accordingly, the circumstances were unlike those in Praveena and Rehana, where selection had been completed before the cut-off and only appointment was delayed.

Applying D. Cholaraju, the Court treated the appointment date—not the earlier application or provisional selection—as determinative and held that alleged grants of the benefit in other cases could not establish entitlement.

It dismissed the writ petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions, with no order as to costs.