Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Government Industrial vs The Commissioner Of on 23 August, 2021
W.P. No.35171 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P. No.35171 of 2004
and WMP. No.42402 of 2004
Tamil Nadu Government Industrial
Training Institute,
Hostel Superintendent cum Physical
Training Officers Association,
Rep. by its Secretary,
A.Sundararajan
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of
Employment & Training Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.The Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Finance (PC) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Secretary to Government of
Tamil Nadu, Labour & Employment
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
...Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.35171 of 2004
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to order
dated 16.03.2004 bearing Roc.No.1812/ITI-5/2004-3 of the first respondent herein
and quash the same and further direct the respondents to grant 5% personal pay to
the members of the petitioner association.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Viswanathan
For Respondents : Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh,
Government Advocate
********
ORDER
The petitioner is the Association of Hostel Superintendent-cum-Physical
Training Officers in the Tamil Nadu Industrial Training Institute. The Association
comprises members who are engaged as Hostel Superintendents but who also render
Physical Training services to the residents of the Industrial Training Institutes run by
the Government of Tamil Nadu.
2. There are 56 Industrial Training Institutes & Centres run by the Government
of Tamil Nadu in respect of which, the post of Hostel Superintendent-cum-Physical
Training Officers have been sanctioned only in 34 Institutes. Recognizing this
unique cadre of service, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued G.O.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.35171 of 2004
Ms.No.497/Finance (pay cell) Department dated 15.09.1998, granting 5% personal
pay to certain categories of employees who were identified as having anomalies in
the pay structure. The personal pay was to be computed on the basis of basic pay as
on 01.09.1998. Though the original G.O had extended the personal pay benefit only
to Officers employed prior to 01.01.1996, by way of subsequent addendum issued on
13.10.1998, the benefit of personal pay was extended to those who had entered
employment with effect from 01.09.1998. Admittedly all the members who are
before this Court satisfy the condition of eligibility.
3.On 10.03.1999, a memo had been issued stipulating the categories of
employees in respect of whom the personal pay benefit was to be extended. The old
pay scales and the revised pay scales were stipulated as follows:
'giHa Cjpa tpfpjk; g[jpa Cjpa tpfpjk;
1/U:/735 ? 1030 U:/ 2610 ? 3510
2/U:/950 ?1500 my;yJ U:/3050?75?3950?80?4590
my;yJ
U:/975?1660 U:/3200?85?4900/
3/U:/1200?2040 U:/4000?100?6000 my;y; J
U:/4500?125?7000
4/U:/1600?2600 U:/5300?150?8300
my;yJ
U:/5500?175?9000
vdnt. nkw;go murhizfspy; Twpa[s;sthW
rk;ge;jg;gl;l tpLjp fz;fhzpg;ghsh;-cjtp gapw;rp mYtyh;
mth;fSf;F 5# jdpr; rk;gsk; tH';f chpa eltof;if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.35171 of 2004
nkw;bfhs;Sk;go fpz;o kw;Wk; g[Jf;nfhl;il murpdh;
bjhHpw;gapw;rp epiya Kjy;th;fs; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLpfwhh;fs;/
,af;FeUf;fhf/*
4. This position continued till 23.01.2004 when the impugned order has come
to be passed reversing the benefit of personal pay allowance to certain employees
alone. The order is short and reads thus:
e/f/vz; 1812-bjh Ef5-2004-3 ntiy tha;g;g[ kw;Wk; gapw;rpj;Jiw
ehs; 16/3/2004 nrg;ghf;fk;. brd;id
Rw;wwpf;if Fwpg;ghiz
bghUs;? gzpaikg;g[ ? jkpH;ehL ntiytha;gg; [ kw;Wk; gapw;rpjJ
; iw rhh;
epiyg;gzp ? khepy fzf;fha;tj[ ; jiythpd; Ma;t[ ? tpLjp fz;fhzpg;ghsh;
kw;Wk; clw;gapw;rp mYtyh;fSf;F 5# jdp Cjpak; tH';FtJ ? bjhlh;ghf/
ghh;it ? khepy fzf;fha;tj[ ; jiythpd; jzpf;if jil
?????
ghh;itapy; fhQqk; khepyf; fzf;fha;tj[ ; jiythpd; jzpfi ; fj; jilapy; murpdh;
bjhHpw; gapw;rp epiya';fspy; gzpgh[ pa[k; tpLjpf; fz;fhzpg;ghsh;-clw;gapw;rp
mYtyh;fSf;F 5# jdp Cjpak; mDkjpf;fj; jFjpapyi ; y vdj;
bjhptpff; g;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt j';fs; murpdh; bjhHpw; gapw;rp epiyaj;jpy; gzp
g[hpa[k; tpLjpf; fz;fhzpg;ghsh;-clw;gapw;rp mYtyh;fSf;F 1/9/98 Kjy; tH';fg;gl;l
jdp Cjpaj;ij gpoj;jk; bra;ag;gl;l ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;. kW Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk;
tiu 5# jdp Cjpak; bgw;W tH';fg;gl ntz;lhk; vd;Wk; midj;J rhh;epiy
mYtyh;fSk; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;/
;
5. The rationale on the basis of which the reversal and subsequent
discontinuance of the personal pay allowances have been made is unclear from the
impugned order dated 16.03.2004 as it simply states that there were Audit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.35171 of 2004
objections, on the basis of which the decision to reverse has been arrived at. It is only
in the counter that a semblance of an explanation is provided to the effect that only
employees in whose cases there had been no upward revision of pay scale would be
eligible.
6. The petitioner, has, at the time of admission of this writ petition obtained an
order of interim stay, as a result of which, the reversal of the personal pay allowance
already made and the recovery of the amounts as well as discontinuance of the
benefits for the subsequent periods have been kept in abeyance.
7. Heard Mr.K.S.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.John
J. Raja Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
8. The State was of the view in the late 1980's, that there were anomalies in
pay scale and the implementation of scales of pay, and had constituted a one man
Commission to examine such anomalies and suggest measures for their correction.
The Commission recommended revision of pay scales such that they be on par with
the scale of Government Teachers. In doing so, the Commission also took note of
representations made by various Associations for revision of their scales of pay and
made a series of recommendations and taking note of the same, 5% scale of pay was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.35171 of 2004
allowed to all categories of employees who had been employed prior to 01.09.1996,
subsequently modified to 01.01.1998.
9. While this is so, the impugned order has come to be passed based on an
objection by audit that there had been a revision of pay scale in the case of the
petitioner thus, dis-entitling them to the relevant relief granted earlier. This reasoning
is available only in the counter filed by the State and does not find place in the
impugned order itself under which the personal pay allowance has simply and
arbitrarily come to be revised. Reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner (1978
AIR SC 851) to the effect that an order has to speak for itself and cannot be
supported by reasons stated subsequently in a counter affidavit would be appropriate
at this juncture.
10. Moreover, impugned order dated 10.03.1999 reversing the benefit of 5%
pay has come like a bolt from the blue, without setting out any basis, let alone
acceptable basis, for the distinction sought to be made between the affected category
of employees and the others mentioned in memo dated 10.03.1999. The benefit of
pay scale has been reversed in regard to those employees in the pay scale of Rs.4000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.35171 of 2004
-100-6000 alone and not in the case of the other employees in whose cases also there
has been a revision of pay. There is also no reason adduced as to why there was an
objection by audit in these cases only.
11. It is true that the State Controller and Auditor General is vested with the
duty of looking into all matters concerning finances and making appropriate
recommendations in cases of laches as well as errors of commission and omission.
However, the approach has to be seen to be consistent. In the present case, the
revised scales of pay in the case of various classes of employee/situations have been
extracted in memo dated 10.03.1999. The memo contains instances of revision of
pay, not just in the case of the petitioners, but in other cases, as well, for instances
where basic pay has been revised from a sum of Rs.2610-3510 and then again,
Rs.5300-150-8300.
12. This is not to say that there should be a reversal of personal pay in the
other cases as well but only to point out that there is no basis for the differential
treatment that has been meted out in this case. If at all a policy decision had been
taken in regard to reversal of personal pay allowance, it should have been applied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.35171 of 2004
across the Board and in all cases where the benefit of personal pay had been
originally granted.
13. Thus on all fours and in the light of the discussion as set out above, I see
no merit in the impugned order reversing the personal pay allowance for the periods
already paid and directing discontinuance of the benefits for the subsequent periods.
14. The impugned order is quashed and the writ petition allowed. Connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
23.08.2021
rkp
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking Order
To
1.The Commissioner of
Employment & Training Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.The Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Finance (PC) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Secretary to Government of
Tamil Nadu, Labour & Employment
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.35171 of 2004
DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J.
rkp
W.P. No.35171 of 2004
and
WMP. No.42402 of 2004
23.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
