Case Note & Summary
The appellant, serving as Headmistress in an aided school, appealed against the dismissal of her writ petition seeking refixation of her pay. She was initially appointed as a Post Graduate Assistant on 3 June 1991 and granted selection grade in the same post on 3 June 2001. She was promoted to Headmistress with effect from 1 June 2010. After the promotion, her scale of pay was fixed with annual increments. Subsequently, relying on G.O.Ms.237, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 22 July 2013, she claimed refixation of pay under Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, which provides for stepping up of pay of seniors on par with their juniors whose pay had been refixed under Rule 4(3). The proposal submitted by the school was rejected by the District Educational Officer, Thiruvallur on 13 April 2015 on the ground that the appellant was not eligible for such refixation. She challenged the rejection in W.P.No.5146 of 2015. The writ court dismissed the petition on 1 June 2023, holding that the appellant and her junior belonged to different cadres—the appellant being Headmistress and the junior being a PG Assistant—and that stepping up could only be claimed when both employees are in the same post. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal. The core legal issue was whether an employee promoted to a higher post can claim pay parity with a junior in the lower cadre under the stepping up rules. The Division Bench examined the findings of the writ court, particularly the observation that the Government Orders (G.O.Ms.234 and G.O.25) would not assist the appellant because she did not fulfill the conditions, and that an essential condition for stepping up is that both employees must be in the same cadre drawing identical pay scales. The court also noted that pay fixation is a complex issue ordinarily entrusted to the competent government authority, and the District Educational Officer's decision had been elaborately adjudicated by the writ court. Finding no reason to interfere, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Stepping Up - Rule 4(3) of Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 - The appellant was promoted from PG Assistant to Headmistress, a higher post. She sought refixation of pay on par with a junior who remained as PG Assistant, under G.O.Ms.237. The Court held that stepping up of pay can be claimed only when both employees belong to the same cadre and draw identical pay scales; the junior being in a lower cadre precludes such claim. The writ court's finding that different cadres do not entitle stepping up was upheld. (Paras 3-4)
B) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Competent Authority - Pay fixation is a complex matter to be decided by the competent government authority. The District Educational Officer rejected the appellant's claim, and the writ court after elaborate consideration confirmed the rejection. The appellate court found no perversity and declined to interfere. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee promoted to the higher post of Headmistress can claim refixation of pay on par with a junior who is in the lower cadre of PG Assistant under G.O.Ms.237 and Rule 4(3) of Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989
Final Decision
Writ Appeal dismissed; writ court's order upheld; no costs
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- An employee promoted to a higher post cannot claim stepping up of pay with a junior who is in a different (lower) cadre
- Stepping up of pay under Rule 4(3) of Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules
- 1989 applies only when both employees hold the same post
- Pay fixation is a complex issue within the domain of the competent authority
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 73
S.M.Subramaniam, N.Senthilkumar
Citation not available, 2026:MHC:2693
J.Getsie Arul Vasanthi, Head Mistress, Sarojini Varadhappan Girls Higher Secondary School, Poonamallee, Chennai-56
The Correspondent, Sarojini Varadhappan Girls Higher Secondary School, Poonamallee, Chennai-56, The District Educational Officer, Thiruvallur, The Director of School Education, Chennai, The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Education Department
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against order dismissing writ petition for refixation of pay
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside order dated 01.06.2023 in W.P.No.5146 of 2015 and allow writ appeal for refixation of pay
Filing Reason
Appellant's claim for refixation of pay under G.O.Ms.237 was rejected by District Educational Officer; writ court upheld rejection
Previous Decisions
W.P.No.5146 of 2015 was dismissed by single judge on 01.06.2023, holding that appellant not eligible for stepping up as she and junior are in different cadres
Issues
Whether an employee promoted to a higher post can claim pay parity with a junior in the lower cadre under Rule 4(3) of Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 and G.O.Ms.237 dated 22.07.2013
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that her pay should be refixed on par with a junior as per G.O.Ms.237; respondents contended that since appellant was promoted to a higher post (Headmistress) and the junior is in the lower cadre (PG Assistant), stepping up is not permissible and the appellant does not fulfill the conditions of the Government Orders
Ratio Decidendi
An employee promoted to a higher post cannot claim stepping up of pay with a junior who is in a lower cadre, as the stepping up rule under Rule 4(3) of Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 applies only when both employees are in the same post/cadre
Judgment Excerpts
11. The said Government Order No.25 dated 23.03.2015 will also not be applicable to the petitioner. Only if her junior had been promoted as Headmaster/ Headmistress and both are in the same post and if the junior still gets more pay than her, then the petitioner can claim same scale on par with her junior. But in the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as PG Assistant in the respondent school on 03.06.1991. Subsequently she was also granted selection grade in the post of PG Assistant on 03.06.2001.Thereafter, she was promoted as Headmistress in the 1st respondent school w.e.f. 01.06.2010. As pointed out by the Learned Additional Government Pleader, the petitioner and her subordinate belong to different cadres. An employee can raise the issue of stepping up of pay on par with his junior only when both of them belong to same cadre and are drawing pay in identical pay scales. The junior of the petitioner is only Post Grade Assistant, whereas the petitioner being appointed to the higher post of Headmistress, cannot raise such a plea. Further, G.O.Ms.No.234 or G.O.25 will in no way be of any benefit to the petitioner as she does not fullfil the condition in the said G.Os. Thus, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered.
That apart, fixation of pay is a complex issue, which is to be normally decided by competent Authority of the Government. District Educational Officer rejected her claim, which was elaborately adjudicated by Writ Court and held that appellant is not eligible for refixation of pay.
Procedural History
Appellant was appointed as PG Assistant on 03.06.1991, granted selection grade on 03.06.2001, promoted as Headmistress on 01.06.2010. She sought pay refixation under G.O.Ms.237 dated 22.07.2013. Proposal submitted by school was rejected by District Educational Officer on 13.04.2015. Appellant filed W.P.No.5146 of 2015 before the High Court. Writ Court dismissed the petition on 01.06.2023. Appellant filed W.A.No.1396 of 2023. Appeal dismissed on 08.07.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989: Rule 4(3)
