Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.Subramanian on 29 April, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.390 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.390 of 2018
and C.M.P.(MD)No.2409 of 2018
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its
Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organization,
Keel Vaigai Basin Section,
Sivaganga.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organization,
Manimuthar Basin Division,
Devakottai Post,
Sivaganga District. ...Appellants
-Vs-
M.Subramanian ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the
order dated 03.03.2017 made in W.P.(MD)No.6823 of 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD) No.390 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravana Kumar
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.,]
This Writ Appeal by the State is directed against the order passed
in W.P.(MD)No.6823 of 2012, dated 03.03.2017, filed by the respondent
herein.
2. The said Writ Petition was filed to quash the order passed by the
third appellant dated 30.4.2012 and consequently, grant scale of pay to
the respondent/writ petitioner as fixed in the year 2009 at the rate of
Rs.6400 + 2400. The learned Single Bench, by the impugned order, has
allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings issued by the third
appellant. The State is aggrieved by the said order and on an appeal
before us.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.390 of 2018
3. We have elaborately heard Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam, learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and
Mr.M.Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ
petitioner.
4. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the
salary initially fixed and paid to the respondent/writ petitioner, by
reckoning the date of joining as 11.09.2009, after he qualified in the
Special Qualifying Test conducted by the TNPSC was right or whether
the department's contention that the salary should be fixed reckoning the
date as 10.01.2011, the date on which he has produced the medical
certificate is to be reckoned.
5. The learned Single Bench, after noting the fact that the
respondent/writ petitioner had been appointed on 12.09.2007 under Rule
10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and had
been continuously working without any break in service, thereby making
him eligible to participate in the Special Qualifying Test conducted by
the TNPSC, during March 2009, allowed the writ petition. The
respondent/writ Petitioner having been successful in the said test was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.390 of 2018
reappointed by the District Collector concerned on 11.09.2009, in the
appellants' Department as Typist and on the same day joined duty. Thus,
the respondent/Writ Petitioner having been become eligible to appear for
the said Qualifying Test conducted by the TNPSC is for the reason that
the respondent had completed the requisite number of years of temporary
service, pursuant to his appointment under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu
State and Subordinate Service Rules. That apart, the Department has not
disputed the fact that the respondent had been re-allotted by the District
Collector on 11.09.2009, only after he has been successful in the Special
Qualifying Test. The reason assigned by the appellants for fixing the
date as 10.01.2011 is on the ground that the respondent/writ petitioner
produced the medical certificate only on the said date. This was rightly
rejected by the learned Single Bench by stating that such reason is totally
unjustifiable because of the undisputed factual position, which we have
also noted and as noted by the learned Writ Court also. Further more,
learned Writ Court was also right in observing that the respondent/writ
petitioner is not a freshly appointed candidate that too from 10.01.2011.
Thus, we find that the reason assigned by the learned Writ Court does not
call for any interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.390 of 2018
6. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed and the order passed
in the Writ Petition is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S. J.,] [S.A.I. J.,]
29.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
vsm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organization,
Keel Vaigai Basin Section,
Sivaganga.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organization,
Manimuthar Basin Division,
Devakottai Post,
Sivaganga District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.390 of 2018
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.,
and
S.ANANTHI, J.,
vsm
W.A.(MD)No.390 of 2018
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
