The Principal Secertary to the Government v. A.Mohamed Mustafa

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.) Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.

(MD)No.16368 of 2024 dated 23.07.2024, the present writ appeal has been filed.

2.It is informed that a Co-ordinate Division Bench, by judgment dated 29.08.2025 in W.A.(MD)No.468 of 2025 & batch, had allowed the batch of writ appeals involving issues similar to those arising in the present writ appeal. This fact is also confirmed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The Co-ordinate Division Bench has held as follows:-

6.The question that calls for consideration is whether the order of the learned Single Judge is sustainable or warrants interference.

7.The learned Single Judge noted that the same issue was raised in the Principal Seat in W.P.No. 15570 of 2021 (C.Arumugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others) and that the said writ petition was allowed on

29.02.2024. In that view of the matter, the present set of writ petitions were allowed in the light of the earlier order dated 29.02.2024. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents strongly submitted that interference with the order of the learned Single Judge is not called for. They filed written notes of arguments.

8.As rightly argued by the learned Advocate General, what has to be seen is under what circumstances, the additional fitment table 15 can be applied.

9.When

the

pay

commission recommendations were enforced, it gave rise to certain anomalies. To examine the same, the State Government constituted a One Man Commission vide G.O.(Ms)No.449 Fiance Department dated 09.09.2009. The One Man Commission went into the anomalies and offered its recommendations in respect of various departments. Accepting the said recommendations, the government issued a series of government orders (ie., G.O.(Ms)No. 254 Finance Department dated 26.08.2010 to G.O.

(Ms)No.340 Finance Department dated 26.08.2010). For instance, G.O.(Ms)No.254 dated 26.08.2010 pertained to the post of Steno-Typist Grade 1. G.O.(Ms)No.255 dated

26.08.2010 pertained to Superintendent in Governance Household. G.O.(Ms)No.273 dated 26.08.2010 pertained to the post of Superintendent of Physical and Training Officer in the department of Employment and Training. Thus, each of the 87 government orders pertained to either a post following under common category or to a particular post in a particular department. Consequent to the revision of pay scales pursuant to the implementation of the recommendation of the One Man Commission, the scales of pay of some of the categories in various departments were elevated from one pay band to another pay band. In order to fix their pay, additional fitment tables were required. Accordingly, the Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Government of Tamil Nadu issued letter dated

15.09.2010 containing additional fitment tables 1 to 17. The Heads of the department / pay fixing authority were called upon to adopt the relevant additional fitment table for fixing the pay of the employees whose scales of pay have been revised based on the government orders issued vide G.O.(Ms)No.254 to G.O.(Ms)No.340 dated

26.08.2010. For the sake of easy understanding, the text of the said letter is extracted as follows:-

10.From this, one can easily come to the conclusion that in order to apply the additional fitment table 15, it must be shown that the post of Vocational Instructors is covered in one of the government orders from G.O.(Ms)No.254 to G.O.(Ms)No.340 dated 26.08.2010. The corollary is that if the post of Vocational Instructors is not covered under any of the aforesaid 87 government orders, the question of applying the additional fitment table 15 will not arise at all.

11.Instead of approaching the issue from the above perspective, the learned Judge posed a question if Rule 4(1)(iii) is applicable. After observing that the claim of the writ petitioners rests on Rule 4(1)(iii), reference is then made to the additional fitment table 15. Upon being satisfied that the grievance of the writ petitioners is justified and that their case will fall under Rule 4(1)(iii), the learned Single Judge abruptly arrives at the conclusion that the writ petitioners are entitled to relief as sought for. In that view of the matter, the proceedings dated 17.02.2020 issued by the Secretary to Government, Education Department was set aside and the government was directed to reconsider the pay fixation with additional fitment table 15 vide order dated 29.02.2024 made in W.P.No.15570 of 2021 (C.Arumugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu).

12.We cannot approve the aforesaid order made in W.P.No.15570 of 2021. This is for more than one reason. Firstly, the learned Single Judge had failed to note that additional fitment table 15 can be applied only if it is shown that the pay band of the post in question had been elevated from one pay band to another pay band on account of implementation of the recommendations of the One Man Commission. Nowhere such a finding has been given. Secondly, according to the learned Single Judge, if Rule 4(1)(iii) is applied in its real sense, additional fitment table 15 has to be applied to the post of Vocational Instructors also. This is incorrect. There is is no logical basis for linking Rule 4(1)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2009 with the additional fitment tables annexed to government letter dated

15.09.2010. Thirdly, matters relating to pay fixation cannot be adjudicated by the Writ Courts since they have large financial implications. They are essentially policy decisions to be taken by the government.

13.Not all Vocational Instructors were getting the same pay as on 01.01.2006. Their pay was revised by applying the multiplying their existing basic pay as on 01.01.2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10. As per Rule 4(1)(ii), if the minimum of the revised pay band / pay scale is more than the amount arrived at as per the method mentioned above, it shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised pay band / pay scale. The consequence of adopting this method was that those who were getting higher pay as on 01.01.2006 and those who were getting lesser pay in the post of Vocational Instructors got bunched and were placed at the same level. This had to be necessarily set right. Rule 4(1)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2009 provided the solution. Since the Vocational Instructors placed their grievances complaining of anomalies, the Pay Grievance Cell was constituted under G.O.(Ms)No.123 Finance Department dated 10.04.2012. Based on its recommendations, G.O.

(Ms)No.263 Finance Department dated 22.07.2013 was issued and the revision took place as follows: Name of the Post Existing scale of pay + Grade pay Revised scale of pay + Grade pay Vocational Teachers / Instructors 9300 – 34800 + 4400 9300 – 34800 + 4600 It is clear from above that the revision that was made was only in respect of grade pay. The pay band was not all at touched or revised. The pay scale or the pay band of the Vocational Instructors remained the same and it was not elevated from one level to another level. As already mentioned, only if there is revision from one pay band to higher level, the additional fitment table will apply and not otherwise. The migration from one pay band to higher pay band is a pre-requisite condition for invoking additional fitment table. This pre-condition has not been fulfilled in the case of Vocational Instructors. To reiterate, revision should be in the case of ordinary grade scale of pay. The ordinary grade scale of Vocational Instructors did not witness any migration to higher level consequent to the recommendation of One Man Commission vide G.O.(Ms)Nos.254 to 340 Finance Department dated 26.08.2010.

14.What was revised was only the pay scales of those Vocational Instructors who were in the selection grade. Their pay scales was revised to Rs.15,600 - 39100+ GP 5400/-. The pay scale of those Vocational Instructor in the special grade was revised to Rs.15,600 – 39100 + GP 5700/-. When the government vide letter No. 66858/CMPC/2013-2 dated 22.08.2014 took the stand that the revised selection grade scale of pay for the Vocational Instructors would also be Rs.9300 – 34800 + GP 4800/-, it was quashed vide order dated 19.03.2018 in W.P.(MD)No.2654 of 2018 etc batch. The order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions was also implemented by the government vide G.O.(Ms)No.306 Finance Department dated 12.09.2018. The said government order is as follows:- Thus, the grievances of the Vocational Instructors in selection grade and special grade have already been redressed. The Vocational Instructors were originally treated on par with B.T. Assistants. The B.T. Assistants had two promotional opportunities. The first level of promotion was as P.G. Assistant / High School Headmaster and the second level was as Higher Secondary School Headmaster. If a B.T. Assistant stagnated without getting promotion, the selection grade / special grade scale of pay has to be fixed by restricting to the first level and second level promotion post, as a result, the position of B.T. Assistant was as follows:- Ordinary Grade Selection Grade Special Grade 9300-34800+G.P. 4600 9300-34800+G.P.4800 15600-39100+G.P.5700

15.The learned Advocate General commented that even though the educational qualification of Vocational Instructors cannot be compared at all to that of a B.T. Assistant still, a selection grade Vocational Instructor gets more grade pay whereas a special grade Vocational Instructor is in a far higher pay scale.

16.For those in higher administrative grade or in pay band 4, the benefits of increment due to bunching shall be given taking into account all the stages in different pay scales in that grade. Admittedly, the Vocational Instructors do not fall in higher administrative grade and they are not in pay band 4. Therefore, they cannot invoke the said rule.

17.Looked at from any angle, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. It is set aside. These writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

3.The above said decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, this writ appeal is allowed and the order passed in WP.

(MD)No.16368 of 2024 dated 23.07.2024 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [C.V.K., J.] & [R.S.V., J.] NCC : Yes/No 03.07.2026 Internet:Yes/No gns C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J and R. SAKTHIVEL, J gns

03.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 03.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL and CMP.(MD)No.8441 of 2026 1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 3.The Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai. 4.The Joint Director (Vocational), Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai-600 006. 5.The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil 629 001. ... Appellants Vs. 1.A.Mohamed Mustafa 2.The Accountant General Office, of the Accountant General (A and E) 361 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in WP.(MD)No.16368 of 2024 dated 23.07.2024. For Appellants : Mr.M.P.Senthil, Counsel for State of TN For R1 : Mr.M.Saravana Kumar, For R2 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran