W.P.No.16802 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
W.P. No.16802 of 2009
and W.M.P.No.1 of 2009
M.Muniraj ... Petitioner
vs
1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd., rep. by
its Managing Director,
12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
Dharmapuri Region,
Bharathipuram,
Dharmapuri – 636 705.
3.The Assistant Manager (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
Dharmapuri Region,
Bharathipuram,
Dharmapuri – 636 705. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the order No.PA3/0990/TNSTC/Dharmapuri/06 dated 29.06.2006
passed by the 3rd respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the
respondents to grant the petitioner third review with effect from 01.08.2005
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 8
W.P.No.16802 of 2009
with all monetary and consequential benefits and to grant me promotion as
Senior Checking Inspector on par with the persons who were given 3rd
review on or before 01.08.2005 with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose
For Respondents : Mr.R.Babu
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 29.06.2006, whereunder, he was informed that the Review Committee has decided to postpone his higher scale of pay by a period of one year, in view of his unsatisfactory services for the previous year.
2.Heard Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Babu, learned counsel for the respondents.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that before taking such decisions that the petitioner was not put on notice. Therefore, he had also made a representation. However, the said representation was rejected by a communication dated 29.06.2006. The petitioner on the same date had made a request to reconsider the issue. However, by communication dated 03.03.2007, the respondent considering the petitioner had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 8 W.P.No.16802 of 2009 satisfactorily completed the service without any interruption had directed refixation of his pay by higher scale from 01.02.2007.
4.The petitioner being aggrieved against the postponement of the higher pay scale of pay on completion of services for 24 years filed the present Writ Petition. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.20923 of 1994 dated 03.11.2000, wherein, this Court had held that the denial of benefit of higher scale of pay for a workmen which have been made without any legally acceptable basis and merely stating that his services were not satisfactory, would be arbitrary and therefore, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order and directed to the grant of higher pay and therefore, requested this Court to interfere with the order and direct recommendation of higher pay scale from 01.08.2005 on date of which he was eligible to be granted.
5.Countering his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the counter filed by the Managing Director of the 1st respondent Corporation would submit that eventhough he was eligible for grant of higher pay of scale as he has completed 24 years of qualifying service, the Review Committee has not considered the same for the reason that his services were not satisfactory. It is his further case that the review sought to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 8 W.P.No.16802 of 2009 be made by him was rejected since, as per the provision 62 (e) under Common Service Rule for State Transport Corporation, once a review was rejected by the Competent Authority, then his case shall not be taken up for review again until after a period of one year form the date on which his case was reviewed last.
6.I have considered the arguments made by the learned counsels appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record before this Court.
7.The petitioner's right to get higher pay of scale was postponed by the Review Committee on the premises of non-satisfactory services. The said order does not specify the instances of what had made the Review Committee to come to such a conclusion as has been held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20923 of 1994. There should be some reasons stated for denial of benefit of such higher pay scale, which he would be otherwise entitled to and also in agreement with such a view, if such an arbitrary power is given to the Review Committee, then such power would be exercised to their whims and fancies, which would amount to arbitrary exercise of power.
8.Even in the counter filed by the 1st respondent, it has not specified https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 8 W.P.No.16802 of 2009 any reasons whatsoever, which necessitated the postponement of higher pay scale. The further contention of the respondent that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the petitioner would have to be delegated to the Labour Court also does not impress me. This Writ Petition was filed in the year 2009 and the present counter was filed only in February, 2022. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was aged 53 years at the time of filing of the Writ Petition and therefore he would have superannuated much before today.
9.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the petitioner has been denied the higher pay scale of pay without any reasonable explanation and therefore he is entitled for higher scale of pay, as on 01.02.2006. Considering the fact that the petitioner had superannuated, I am of the view that the respondent is directed to grant the higher scale of pay with effect from 01.02.2006 and fix a notional pay from that date and grant him all attendant benefit notionally. On fixing of such higher pay scale, the difference in Provident Fund amount alone may be credited to the account of the petitioner which would entitle him to better monetary benefits that what he would have received at the time of his superannuation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 8 W.P.No.16802 of 2009
10.As stated above, after arriving at the final retirement benefit, the respondents are directed to pay the balance retirement benefits to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
16.09.2022 Index: Yes/no Speaking/non-speaking gba To
1.Managing Director, for The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem.
2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Dharmapuri Region, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri – 636 705.
3.The Assistant Manager (Personnel), Tamil Nadu State Transport https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 8 W.P.No.16802 of 2009 Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Dharmapuri Region, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri – 636 705.
K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
gba W.P.No.16802 of 2009 and W.M.P.No.1 of 2009 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 8 W.P.No.16802 of 2009 16.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 8