AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner is a B.T. Assistant in Government High School. He obtained higher qualifications and he was
granted incentive increments for the same before pay revision.
After pay revision, the 3rd Respondent who is junior to the Petitioner obtained higher qualification and he was granted incentive increments.
Since he was given incentive increments after pay revision, the junior got more pay. Hence an anomaly arose. The Petitioner seeks pay on par with
the pay of his junior.
The Petitioner cannot be penalised for acquiring higher qualification at an earlier point of time. It is well settled that the seniors are entitled to
equal pay on par with his juniors. The junior was granted higher pay since he obtained higher qualification after the pay revision. This could not be
a reason to deny the equal pay for the Petitioner.
Hence the writ petition is allowed and this Court directs the Respondents R1 and R2 to fix the pay of the Petitioner on par with the 3rd
Respondent with effect from 31.12.1992 and consequently to pay the arrears. The Respondents3 R1 and R2 are also directed to revise the
terminal benefits and to pay arrears thereon. The Respondents R1 and R2 are directed to complete the exercise within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.