Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, N. Kathirvelu, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking to quash the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the fourth respondent, the District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, which denied fixation of his pay at Rs.83,800/- on par with his junior, M. Velmurugan (the seventh respondent). The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the fourth respondent to re-fix his pay at that level from the date of his joining the post of Sherishtadar and to disburse the arrears of salary. The core dispute pertained to an alleged pay anomaly where the petitioner claimed that his junior was drawing a higher salary, and he was entitled to parity. When the matter came up for hearing, the Registrar General of the High Court filed a counter affidavit stating that the competent authority to decide pay parity or anomaly between two persons working in the judicial service is the High Court itself, relying upon G.O.Ms.No.896, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.-I) Department dated 10.09.1986, which delegates powers to Heads of Departments with a condition that cases be sent to the Government for ratification within a month. The counter affidavit explicitly mentioned that the High Court is the competent authority to go into the issue of pay parity. The court observed that although reasons regarding the ineligibility of the petitioner were stated in paragraph 8 of the counter, the competent authority had not decided the issue on merits. The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. K. Venkataramani, argued that the impugned order was erroneous, while the respondents, through Government Counsel Dr. R. Gouri and AGP Mr. V. Vasanthakumar, maintained that the High Court must adjudicate the matter. The court refrained from examining the merits of the pay parity claim and instead granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with all relevant documents to the competent authority. The competent authority was directed to independently examine the service records and take a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment does not cite any precedents or specific statutory provisions beyond the government order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Pay Anomaly - Government Order G.O.Ms.No.896, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.-I) Department dated 10.09.1986 - Petitioner sought re-fixation of pay on par with junior; the High Court is the competent authority to decide pay parity under said Government Order - Held that the competent authority had not decided the issue on merits; petitioner granted liberty to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority, and the writ petition disposed of accordingly (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to re-fixation of pay on par with his junior, and whether the fourth respondent's order denying fixation should be quashed.
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation along with documents to the competent authority (High Court), who shall examine the service records and decide the pay parity issue in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Pay parity determination in judicial service is within the competence of the High Court
- G.O.Ms.No.896 dated 10.09.1986 delegates powers to Heads of Departments
- High Court is the competent authority to decide pay anomaly.
