Madras High Court
Unknown vs C.Mariyappan on 15 April, 2021
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 15.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127,
128 & 129 of 2017
in
W.A.Nos.538 of 2013, 1241 of 2012 and 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388,
389, 390 & 391 of 2009
and
Cont.P.Nos.487/2017, 1515/2015, 1514/2015, 1516/2015 & 2760/2015,
The Registrar,
The Tamil Nadu Veterinary and
Animal Sciences University,
Madhavaram Milk Colony,
Chennai 51. ...Petitioner in Rev.Aplw.No.111/2016
Vs
1.C.Mariyappan
2.V.Subramani
3.R.Kandasamy
4.S.Kalaimani
5.M.Manivannan
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
6.S.Manickavasagam
7.C.Balakrishnan
8.K.Pachiappan
9.S.Punniyakotti
10.C.Raje
11.G.Bastin
12.K.Govindasamy
13.V.Annadurai
14.C.Ravi
15.C.Moorthi
16.P.Rajamani
17.R.Murali
18.N.Ravi
19.M.N.Dhanraj
20.M.Venkatachalam
21.G.Thulasi Doss
22.D.Veerabadran
23.R.Jayaseelan
24.K.Jayaraman
25.J.Sagayaraj
26.K.Babu
27.R.Perumal
28.K.Vijayakumar
29.A.Sakthivel
30.R.Raja
31.M.Dharmaraj
32.P.Thangaraj
33.E.Ramachandran
34.V.Sekar
35.M.Kamrudeen
36.C.Sagayaraj
37.V.Ravichandran
38.K.Murthy
39.S.Aminudeen
40.V.Manavalan
41.C.Jaganathan
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
42.P.Krishnan
43.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Animal Husbandry,
Dairying and Fisheries,
Chennai 600 009.
44.The Commissioner of Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary Service,
D.M.S.Complex,
Chennai 600 006. ...Respondents Rev.Aplw.No.111/2016
1.The Commissioner of Agriculture
Engineering Department,
Chepauk, Chennai.5.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Agricultural Engineering,
Chennai 600 035.
3.The Joint Director of Agriculture Department,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Agriculture Engineering Department,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
5.The Deputy Director of Horticulture,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
6.The District Treasury Officer,
Villupuram.
...Petitioners in Rev.Aplw.No.120/2017
Vs.
1.G.Selvaraj
2.K.Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
3.A.Devakumar
4.M.P.Kumar
5.A.Arumugam
6.M.Madhurai Muthu
7.P.Natarajan
...Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.120/2017
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai-9.
2.State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by Secretary to Government,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
... Petitioner in Rev.Aplw.Nos.121 to 129/2017
Vs.
1.V.Mariappan
2.S.Murugan
3.K.Vijayarajan
4.S.Veeraputhiran
5.V.Sundaram
6.P.Joseph
7.R.Prakasam
8.K.Abdul Jafer ....Respondent in Rev.Aplw.No.122/2017
1.K.Sahadevan
2.G.Mani
3.R.Kannan
4.M.Elumalai
5.A.P.Rajan
6.R.Vijayan
7.K.Ramakrishnan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
8.G.Selvaraj
9.V.Sukumaran
10.A.Abdul Jafar
11.J.Iyappan
12.K.Narayanaperumal
13.P.Sarnappan
14.C.A.J.Chandramohan
15.K.Sukumaran Nair
16.S.Kochkunjan
17.Y.Anderson
18.S.Murugan
19.S.Vallinayagam
20.M.Duraisamy
21.R.K.Sundara Rajan
22.R.Manickam
23.A.Sakthivel
24.S.Palanisamy
25.S.Sreedharan
26.K.Balu
27.M.Mohamed Anwar
28.A.Manimaran
29.C.Manickavasagam
30.Sahul Hameed
31.P.Kannan
32.P.Santhanam
33.V.Murugesan
34.R.Muniyandi
35.M.Gopinathan
36.V.Rajendran
37.L.Ameer Batcha
38.A.Rathakrishnan
39.N.Kamatchi
40.A.Alphonse
41.N.Karmegam
42.A.William
43.R.Palanisamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
44.K.Muthuramalingam
45.S.Babu
46.K.Raju
47.J.Jeyaselvam
48.P.Ramakrishnan
49.B.Kandan
50.S.Thirumal Kumar
51.M.Sayeed Ali
52.S.Manidasan
53.V.Chandrasekar
54.A.Jambu
55.K.Damodaran
56.K.Kandasamy
57.N.Thangaraj
58.M.K.Thambu
59.N.Jayaraman
60.K.Balakrishnan
61.M.Ramachandran
62.S.Velliangri
63.S.Kesavan
64.D.Raghupathy
65.S.Nagarathinam
66.C.Thiyagarajan
...Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.123/2017
1.M.K.Singaram
2.P.kunjukrishnan
3.C.K.Mukkaiah
4.K.Raju ...Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.124/2017
1.G.Isakimuthu
2.K.Subramanian
3.S.Sankaralingam
4.R.Kannan
5.I.S.Velu
6.G.Natarajan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
7.P.Chokalingam
8.S.Chellappa ...Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.125/2017
1.K.Singaraj
2.S.Murali
3.A.Jayamani
4.N.Muthaiah
5.P.Paulraj ...Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.126/2017
1.V.Ramaswamy
2.A.Vijayakumar
3.S.Murugan
4.V.Ramakrishnan
5.G.Krishnan
6.S.Kumaresan
7.M.David ...Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.127/2017
1.P.Vijayakumar
2.T.Deendayalan
3.V.Natarajan
4.P.Mani
5.J.Alexander Joseph
6.Ayyanar
7.M.Azhagu Pillai
8.R.Krishnasamy
9.P.Shanmugam
10.E.Bakyadas
11.T.George
12.S.D.Simpson
13.D.Sasikumar
14.R.Raman
15.K.Blakrishnan
16.R.Natarajan
17.S.Murugan
18.M.John Thomas Benzigar
19.T.Mohan Muthulingam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
20.A.Maridasan
21.P.Chandiran
22.K.V.Chandiran
23.Balakrishnan
24.M.K.Rangarajan
25.R.Velliangiri
26.C.Palanisamy
27.M.Uthuman Labai
28.J.Raju
29.S.Arumugam
30.D.Gopalakrishnan
31.J.Sebastian
32.B.Shanmuga Sundaram
33.K.Selvaraj
34.S.Rajakumaran
35.S.Singaravelu
36.G.Xavier
37.V.Karuppaiyan
...Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.128/2017
R.Arumugam ...Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.129/2017
1.P.Shanmugam
2.E.Bakyadas
3.T.George
4.S.D.Simpson
5.D.Sasikumar
7.R.Raman
8.B.Shanmuga Sundaram
9.S.Rajakuraman
10.S.Singaravelu ...Petitioner in Cont.P.No.2760/2015
Vs.
Thiru.M.Shanmugam I.A.S.,
Principal Secretary to Government,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
...Respondent in Cont.P.No.2760/2015
1.Siluvai Nathan
2.T.Krishnamurthy
3.M.Selvamani
4.S.Mahalingam
5.A.Karthigeyan
6.A.Muthusamy
7.S.Mohan
8.S.Sivaji ....Petitioners in Cont.P.No.1514/2015
1.P.Lakshmiganthan
2.K.Manoharan
3.M.Elumalai
4.S.Kannilal
5.M.Balamuthu
6.N.Shanmugasundaram
7.M.Selvaraj
8.M.Sivalingam
9.E.Gnanasekaran
10.D.George Kutty
11.A.Mohamed Thameem
12.M.Jagadeesan
13.R.Sankaran
14.S.Balakrishnan
15.M.Rajaram
16.A.Paraman
17.S.Rajendran
18.C.Philipose
19.K.Kuppusamy
20.R.Arumugam
21.K.Gurumoorthy
22.E.Kannan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
23.S.Mahaboob Basha
24.R.Dickson
25.P.Velu
26.G.Natarajan
27.S.Mohamed Ethiya Thaika Sahib
28.P.Ravi
29.M.Arumugam
30.B.Ravikumar
31.R.V.Shanmuga Saravanan
...Petitioners in Cont.P.No.1515/2015
1.K.Jayaraman
2.K.Karuppiah
3.L.Ramakrishnan
4.M.Dhanaraj
5.M.Karunakaran
6.S.Dathuraj
7.P.Vadamalai
8.A.P.Durai
9.K.Varatharajan
10.K.Palani
11.K.S.Kandasamy
12.A.Vedachalam
13.P.Nagarathinam
14.D.Subramnian ...Petitioners in Cont.P.No.1516/2015
Vs.
Mr.Jatindra Nath Swain I.A.S
Secretary to Government,
Public (M.V) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
...Respondent in Cont.P.No.1515/2015
K.Sahadevan ...Petitioners in Cont.P.No.487/2017
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
1.Thiru.K.Shanmugan I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.Thiru.Davidar I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
...Respondent in Cont.P.No.487/2017
PRAYER in Rev.Aplw.No.111/2016 :-Review Petition filed under Order
XLVII read with Section 114 C.P.C against the order made in
W.A.No.538/2013 dated 12.4.2013 by this Court.
PRAYER in Rev.Aplw.No.120/2017 :-Review Petition filed under Order
XLVII read with Section 114 C.P.C to review the order dated 27.01.2015
made in W.A.No.1241 of 2012 passed by this Court and set aside the same.
PRAYER in Rev.Aplw.No.121 to 129/2017 :-Review Petition filed under
Order XLVII read with Section 114 C.P.C against the order of this Court
dated 01.09.2009 made in W.A.Nos.383 to 391 of 2009.
PRAYER in Cont.P.No.2760/2015: Contempt filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of
the order in W.P.NO.13524 of 2008 dated 30.09.2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
PRAYER in Cont.P.No.1514/2015: Contempt filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of
the order in W.P.NO.893 of 2009 dated 01.09.2009.
PRAYER in Cont.P.No.1515 & 1516/2015: Contempt filed under Section
11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for wilful
disobedience of the order in W.P.NO.22629 & 22640 of 2012 dated
17.09.2012.
PRAYER in Cont.P.No.487/2017: Contempt filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of
the order in W.A.NO.384/2009 dated 01.09.2009.
Rev.Aplw.No.111/2016:
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
For RR1 to 42 : Mr.Vijay Narayan
Advocate General assisted by
Ms.Narmadha Sampath
Additional Advocate General
and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
Government Pleader
Rev.Aplw.No.120/2017:
For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayan
Advocate General assisted by
Ms.Narmadha Sampath
Additional Advocate General
and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ravi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
Rev.Aplw Nos.121, 122 and 123 to 129/2017:
For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayan
Advocate General assisted by
Ms.Narmadha Sampath
Additional Advocate General
and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
Government Pleader
For RR1 and R37 in Rev.Aplw.No.122/2017:
Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.121 and 123 to 129/2017:
Mr.L.Chandrakumar
Cont.P.No.487/2017:
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondents : Mr.Vijay Narayan
Advocate General assisted by
Ms.Narmadha Sampath
Additional Advocate General
and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
Government Pleader
Cont.P.No.1514-1516/2015 & 2760/2015:
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.Vijay Narayan
Advocate General assisted by
Ms.Narmadha Sampath
Additional Advocate General
and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]
The facts leading to the present round of litigation have been narrated
in detail and in extenso in the impugned order and it is unnecessary to
restate the facts once again.
2. A Single Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.11.2013 made in
W.P.No.1418 of 2013 and batch etc., had an occasion to consider the prayer
made by the writ petitioners to extend appropriate revised scales of pay
insofar as Selection Grade and Special Grade Driver to the petitioners are
concerned forthwith on the basis of the VI Pay Scale Recommendations
(Revised Pay Rules) as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell
Department) dated 13.04.1998 and disposed of the Writ Petitions and it is
relevant to extract the following paragraphs:
''51. Therefore, if it is taken that the learned single Judge in the order
dated 30.09.2008 in W.P.No.4288 of 2008 and the Division Bench
affirming the said order in the judgment dated 01.09.2009 in
W.A.No.383 of 2009 have given direction to implement Selection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
Grade and Special Grade pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay
Cell) Department, dated 13.04.1998, the petitioners are entitled to
get 4000-6000 and 4300-6000 as Selection / Special Grade since
admittedly their Ordinary Grade Pay is 3200-4900, as per
G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.04.1998 and the G.O.Ms.No.162 nowhere
granted the benefit of Selection Grade and Special Grade pay to the
petitioners, who are Drivers, at Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000,
since the same is applicable to the Ordinary Grade Pay of Rs.4000-
6000.
52. The claim for grant of Selection Grade and Special Grade
at Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 is based on erroneous fixation at
some places in some departments and the petitioners are not able to
point out as to how they are entitled to the ordinary grade scale of
pay at Rs.4000-6000 as on 01.01.1996 as per G.O.Ms.No.162,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13.04.1998, and unless the
petitioners establish that they are entitled to the Ordinary Grade Pay
of Rs.4000-6000, they are not entitled to the corresponding Selection
/ Special Grades pay of Rs.5000-8000 and 5500-9000. On the other
hand, as as per G.O.Ms.No.162, the Ordinary Grade scale of pay of
the Drivers is Rs.3200-4900 as 01.01.1996 and the persons, who
were in receipt Rs.1200-2040 prior to 01.01.1996, were only given
Rs.4000-6000 revised scale of pay, but the Drivers were not given
Rs.1200-2040 before 01.01.1996 and they were given only Rs.975-
1660, for which Rs.3200-4900 is the ordinary Grade pay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
53. Therefore, based on the aforesaid judgments and more
particularly judgment of the Apex Court judgment in Union of India
V. Shri Bhanwar Lal Mundan, reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 736 (SC), I
am of the view that the petitioners cannot rely on the erroneous
fixation in support of their claim.
54. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions fail and
the same are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. ''
3. A Division Bench of this Court (The Hon'ble Mr.Justice
V.Ramasubramanian and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.Mathivanan) had dealt
with the issue relating to the selection and special grade scales of pay
admissible to persons working as drivers in various departments of the State
of Tamil Nadu, Local Bodies and Boards under a Government Order
G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13.04.1998 and
delivered a common judgment dated 08.07.2015, exhaustively dealing with
the factual aspect and more particularly, the Government Orders and
various orders passed by this Court. The Division Bench has also observed
as to the mistakes committed by the Courts by passing orders on the pretext
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
that the issue is covered by an earlier proceedings and it is relevant to
extract paragraph nos.25, 26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment:
''25. Even in the very first judgement of a learned Judge of this
Court dated 30.09.2008, which has led to hundreds and hundreds of
Writ Petitions, no direction was issued to fix the selection grade
scale at Rs.5000/- and special grade scale at Rs.5500/-. But
unfortunately, the subsequent orders passed by this Court, mentioned
these amounts, without any basis.
26. Therefore unless the law has developed to such an extent
that once the Court commits a mistake, the same becomes
irredeemable, even at the cost of public money, it is not possible for
us to invoke Article 14. As we have pointed out elsewhere-
(a) the very first order of a learned Judge of this Court merely
directed the grant of selection and special grades as per G.O.Ms.
No. 162, without indicating the exact scales of pay;
(b) all subsequent orders passed in favour of the other employees, by
various learned Judges of this Court, were passed at the stage of
admission, without putting the Government on notice and without
giving them an opportunity, solely on the basis that the issue raised
in those cases were already covered by the decision of a single Judge
dated 30.09.2008, which was also affirmed by the Division Bench by
an order dated 01.09.2009;
(c) all subsequent orders got implemented by those petitioners, under
threat of contempt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
27. Therefore, the Writ Petitioners in the present batch of
cases cannot rely upon Article 14, when this Court never went into
the question (except in the decision of D.Hariparanthaman,J) as to
whether the drivers are entitled to a selection grade scale of pay of
Rs.5000/- and a special grade scale of pay of Rs.5500/-.
28. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Advocate General,
the pressure that keeps mounting upon this Court due to the huge
pendency and the tendency that results therefrom, to dispose of at
least those cases which are covered by earlier decisions, even on the
first or second date of hearing, has actually led to this position.
Therefore we cannot sweep the core issue under the carpet and
reiterate the same mistakes by taking recourse to Article 14. Hence
we reject the first contention advanced on behalf of the employees.''
4. The Division Bench also dealt with the contention raised on behalf
of the drivers that when several Benches of this Court both Single and
Division, have passed orders in a particular manner, it is not open to the
respondents to again and again re-agitate the same issue in every writ
petitions and answered the said issue in paragraph no.35 and it is relevant to
extract the same:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
''35. .............Therefore, this Court should not feel shackled
either by the rules of procedure or by the principles of propriety, when
it is so glaring that a gross injustice has been done to the State (1) by
writ petitions getting allowed at the stage of admission and (2) by
getting those orders implemented under threat of contempt. This is
especially so when the earliest decision that was followed in all other
cases, did not decide the scale of pay to be granted for Selection and
Special Grades. Hence, the second contention of the writ petitioners is
also liable to be rejected.''
5. The Division Bench while answering the third contention as to the
illegality cannot be perpetrated, has answered the said issue in paragraph
no.40 by observing that ''.....An illegality will not undergo a metamorphosis
and become legal, merely because it receive the seal of approval of a Court
of law. Therefore, the third contention is also liable to be rejected.''
6. All the Writ Appeals came to be disposed of with the following
directions:
42. Therefore, in the result, all the writ petitions filed by the
individual employees claiming Selection Grade scale of pay of
Rs.5000-8000 and Special Grade pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
liable to be dismissed. However, there are a few writ petitions such
as W.P.Nos.23550 of 2010, 5498 of 2012 and 30616 of 2012, where
the employees claim that they are not even granted the admissible
Selection Grade and Special Grade scales pay of Rs.4000-6000 and
Rs.4300-6000 respectively.
43. Therefore, with a clarification that all the petitioners in
the writ petitions and the respondents in the writ appeals are entitled
only to a Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.4000-100-6000 and a
Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.4300-100-6000, but not more than
that, all the writ petitions filed by the employees are dismissed. All
the writ appeals filed either by the State Government or by various
Heads of Departments or by various officers of the Government or by
various Local Bodies or Boards or Corporations, shall stand
allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
7. The learned Advocate General appearing for Review Applicants
would submit that the said common judgment reported in 2015 (4) CTC
241, was put to challenge by filing Special Leave Petition and those
petitions were entertained and were converted as Civil Appeal Nos.9533-
537 of 2019 with Nos.9538-546 of 2019, 9547-549 of 2019, 9551-559 of
2019, 9560-561 of 2019 and were disposed of, vide common judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
dated 18.12.2019, reported in 2020 (3) SCC 133 (P.Singaravelan and
Others Vs. District Collector, Tiruppur and Others).
8. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.18.2
of the said decision found that the High Court differed from the view taken
previously by a coordinate Bench based on a misreading of the same, had
taken into consideration the expeditious disposal of the matter and held that
this Court is not inclined to remand the matter to the High Court for fresh
consideration and dealt with the said issue on merits and framed the
questions in paragraph no.22 as to whether the appellants are entitled to
claim parity with the drivers who have so far been granted benefits vide the
orders of the High Court and this Court, as mentioned supra in para 4 and
answered the same in paragraph no.24 as under:
''24. Thus, it is evident that the appellants cannot claim
the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay of Rs
5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively, solely on the
strength of earlier decisions of the High Court, without
showing how they, themselves, are entitled to such benefit in
the first place. In such a situation, we are of the considered
view that the appellants can only be granted the benefit of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay to which
they are lawfully entitled in terms of GOMs No. 162 i.e. Rs
4000-6000 and Rs 4300-6000 respectively. ''
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also dealt with Civil Appeals arising
out of SLP (Diary No.42301 of 2017), with respect to pay scale entitled for
certain drivers employed by the High Court of Madras in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.162 and answered the said issue in paragraph no.29 and 30 as
under:
''29. As discussed supra, it has not been disputed before us
that the drivers concerned were not entitled to any promotional
avenues. Thus, it is evident that the High Court rightly concluded
that the drivers were entitled to the full benefits of the appropriate
pay scale under Schedule II to the 1998 Rules. However, in light
of our foregoing finding that persons employed in the post of
drivers in various departments in the Government of Tamil Nadu
are only entitled to Ordinary, Selection and Special Grade pay
scales in terms of Serial No. 6 of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules i.e.
at Rs 3200-4900, Rs 4000-6000 and Rs 4300-6000 respectively,
we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court erred in
directing fixation of such pay scales to drivers employed at the
High Court in terms of Serial No. 8 of Schedule II, fixing Selection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
Grade and Special Grade scales of pay of Rs 5000-8000 and Rs
5500-9000 respectively.
30. The appeals are therefore allowed partly, to the extent that
the State Government is directed to fix the pay scale benefits
available to the respondents in the instant appeals in terms of
Serial No. 6 of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules under GOMs No.
162. ''
10. It is the submission of the learned Advocate General that in the
light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
above cited decision reported in 2020 (3) SCC 133, the review applications
have to be allowed.
11. Per contra, Mr.L.Chandrakumar and Mr.M.Ravi, learned
counsels appearing for the private respondents would submit that
subsequent change of position would not be considered as error apparent on
the face of the record and therefore, the orders, which are the subject matter
of the present review applications, were perfectly sustainable and prays for
dismissal of these review applications with exemplary costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
12. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also
perused the materials placed before it.
13. It is a well settled position of law that the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is retrospective in nature, unless it is
indicated that it is prospective in nature. It is to be noted at this juncture that
the Special Leave Petition preferred by Mr.P.Singaravelan, were entertained
and they were converted as Civil Appeal Nos.9533-537 of 2019 batch etc
and vide common judgment dated 18.12.2019, reported in 2020 (3) SCC
133, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dismissed the set of appeals
arising out of S.L.P (C).Nos.5395-99 of 2016, 5605-13 of 2016, 5391-93 of
2016, 5367-75 of 2016 and also disposed of Civil Appeal arising out of
SLPs (Diary No.42301/2017) pertain to pay scale entitled for certain drivers
employed by the High Court of Madras in terms of G.O.Ms.No.162 and the
details of which has been extracted in the earlier paragraphs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
14. The said judgment being rendered in Civil Appeals are declared
as law and in the absence of any indication that the said common judgment
is prospective in nature, this Court is of the considered view that the said
decision have full application to the case on hand. At this juncture, the
respective learned counsels appearing for the private respondents would
submit that in the light of the fact that the private respondents had got the
benefits in view of the judgments rendered in their favour, there cannot be
any order for recovery of the alleged excess amount paid to them.
15. On the said submission, this Court heard the submission of the
learned Advocate General also.
16. Insofar as the said prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the
private respondents are concerned, they are at liberty to submit
representations to the official respondents concerned, who upon receipt of
the same, are directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance
with law and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
17. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the light of the law
declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision,
which in turn also approved the views rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court dated 08.07.2015 in W.A.No.1398 of 2013 batch etc., there is an
error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the impugned order
warrants interference.
18. In the result, all the Review Applications are allowed and the
judgments dated 12.04.2013 made in W.A.Nos.538/2013, dated 27.01.2015
made in W.A.No.1241/2012, , dated 01.09.2009 made in W.A.Nos.383 to
391/2009, on the file of this Court, are set aside and consequently Writ
Appeals and Writ Petitions are dismissed subject to the observations made
in paragraph no.16. In the light of the orders passed in the Review
Application, the Contempt Petitions are closed. No costs.
[M.S.N.,J] [P.R.M., J]
15.04.2021
sk
Index : No
Internet :Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Animal Husbandry,
Dairying and Fisheries,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary Service,
D.M.S.Complex,
Chennai 600 006.
3.Thiru.K.Shanmugan I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
4.Thiru.Davidar I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
M.SATHYANARAYANAN.,J,
and
P.RAJAMANICKAM.,J,
sk
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of
in
W.A.Nos.538 of 2013 and 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 & 391 of 2009
and
Cont.P.Nos.487/2017, 1515/2015, 1514/2015, 1516/2015 & 2760/2015,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Application Nos.111/2016 and 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2017
15.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
