AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Original Application in O.A. No. 868 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is W.P. No.
9343 of 2007 before this Court.
Heard Mr. B.M. Swamy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. C.K. Vishnu Priya, the learned Additional Government Pleader for
the respondents.
The petitioner is the Higher Secondary Teacher. He got higher qualification viz., M.Ed., on 30.12.1988, whereas his junior one Mr.
Karunagaran got higher qualification viz., M.Ed., on 11.09.1987. Since the Junior has got higher qualification earlier to the senior, the Junior was
given the incentive increment that resulted in the Junior getting more pay. But the petitioner seeks parity with Junior by this Original Application.
The first respondent has correctly passed the impugned order dated 30.10.2000 stating that since the Junior got more pay due to his obtaining
higher qualification earlier to the senior, anomaly in such a pay could not be rectified by invoking the Fundamental Rule 22(b). I find that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.