The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that once an employee is promoted, entitlement to selection grade under Rule 4(3) and G.O.Ms.No.57 (Pay Cell-II) dated 28-01-1991 ceases after the 2006 scales revision embodied in G.O.Ms.No.234 (Pay Cell) dated 01-06-2009. The decision follows and affirms the common order in W.P. No. 21787 of 2014 & connected batch (05-07-2022) and serves as binding authority for pay-fixation disputes under the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(MD)/15921/2017 of P.RAVI Vs THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL – CNR HCMD011213752017 |
| Decision Date | 19-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Madurai Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms earlier batch decision in W.P. No. 21787 of 2014 & connected batch |
| Type of Law | Service Law – pay fixation under State pay rules |
| Questions of Law | Whether an employee promoted from Lab Assistant to Junior Assistant can claim fixation of selection grade pay under Rule 4(3) and G.O.Ms.No.57 after the 2006 revision |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | W.P. No. 21787 of 2014 & connected batch – common order dated 05-07-2022 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Government Orders: G.O.Ms.No.234 (Pay Cell) 01-06-2009; G.O.Ms.No.57 (Pay Cell-II) 28-01-1991; Fundamental Rules; requirement of comparative statement |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner joined as Lab Assistant on 03-01-1996, promoted to Junior Assistant on 02-05-2002; representation for pay re-fixation forwarded on 27-07-2017; third respondent returned it on 03-08-2017; similar petitions in W.P. No. 21787 of 2014 & connected were dismissed. |
| Citations | W.P.(MD) No. 15921 of 2017; CNR HCMD011213752017; W.P. No. 21787 of 2014 & connected batch; G.O.Ms.No.57/1991; G.O.Ms.No.234/2009 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Follows | W.P. No. 21787 of 2014 & connected batch (common order dated 05-07-2022) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that promotion to a higher post precludes retrospective claim of selection grade pay under Rule 4(3) once pay scales are revised by a subsequent G.O.
- Holds that G.O.Ms.No.57 (1991) clarifying Rule 4(3) does not apply after the 01-01-2006 revision under G.O.Ms.No.234 (2009).
- Emphasises the necessity of a comparative statement under Fundamental Rules for any pay equalization claim.
- Reinforces that writ petitions are not maintainable to challenge pay-fixation orders passed strictly in accordance with government pay-revision G.O.s.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Scope of G.O.Ms.No.234 (01-06-2009): Revised pay scales effective from 01-01-2006 replace earlier scales under the 1989 Rules.
- Applicability of G.O.Ms.No.57 (28-01-1991): Clarifies Rule 4(3) for the 1989 pay revision; absence of specific orders extending it to post-2006 scales bars its application to promoted employees.
- Fundamental Rules and Comparative Statement: Senior employees can seek pay equalization only by filing a comparative statement when juniors draw higher pay.
- Precedent in W.P. No. 21787 of 2014 & Connected Batch: Common order dated 05-07-2022 dismissed identical claims, establishing that selection grade pay is not available post-promotion under revised scales.
- Conclusion: Pay-fixation orders issued under G.O.Ms.No.234 are valid; no entitlement to selection grade pay arises after promotion and pay revision.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed he would have obtained selection grade pay (₹ 4,000–100–6,000) on 03-01-2006 had he remained a Lab Assistant.
- Relied on Rule 4(3) of the 1989 Rules and G.O.Ms.No.57 (28-01-1991) to justify pay re-fixation.
- Argued his seniority entitled him to pay equal to juniors drawing higher salaries.
Respondents (R1–R3)
- Stated G.O.Ms.No.234 (01-06-2009) revising pay scales effective 01-01-2006 supersedes G.O.Ms.No.57 for subsequent revisions.
- Highlighted no specific government order extends G.O.Ms.No.57 to post-2006 scales.
- Emphasized the petitioner did not provide a comparative statement as required under Fundamental Rules.
- Asserted the impugned order was passed strictly in accordance with the relevant G.O.s and Rules.
Factual Background
P.Ravi joined a private school as a Lab Assistant on 03-01-1996 and was promoted to Junior Assistant on 02-05-2002. He submitted a representation on 27-07-2017 seeking pay re-fixation, alleging that a junior colleague drew higher pay. The District Educational Officer, by order dated 03-08-2017, refused the proposal, holding that fixation under Rule 4(3) and G.O.Ms.No.57 did not arise after the 2006 revision under G.O.Ms.No.234. A batch of similar writ petitions (W.P. No. 21787 of 2014 & connected) was dismissed by common order dated 05-07-2022.
Statutory Analysis
- Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1989, Rule 4(3): Provides for pay fixation on promotion or in case juniors draw higher pay.
- G.O.Ms.No.57 Finance (Pay Cell-II) Dept (28-01-1991): Clarifies Rule 4(3) for 1989 scales; held inapplicable after 2006 revision.
- G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (Pay Cell) Dept (01-06-2009): Revises pay scales effective 01-01-2006, superseding earlier scales.
- Fundamental Rules: Require a comparative statement when a senior claims pay equal to a junior.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms the dismissal of similar claims in W.P. No. 21787 of 2014 & connected batch.
Citations
- W.P.(MD) No. 15921 of 2017; CNR HCMD011213752017
- W.P. No. 21787 of 2014 & connected batch (common order dated 05-07-2022)
- G.O.Ms.No.57 Finance (Pay Cell-II) Dept dated 28-01-1991
- G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (Pay Cell) Dept dated 01-06-2009