Madras High Court
P.Murugan vs The Secretary To Government on 24 August, 2021
W.A(MD)No.1271 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.A.(MD) No.1271 of 2021
P.Murugan .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
(Local Administration),
Tamil Nadu Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government.
(Health),
Tamil Nadu Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1271 of 2021
4.The District Collector/
Chairman of DRDA,
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai - 622 001.
5.The Project Director,
District Rural Development Agency,
Pudukkottai - 622 001. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 29.08.2019 made in W.P.(MD).No.15260 of 2019
on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.A.John Vincent
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Standing Counsel for Government
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice]
There is no merit in the appeal as the order impugned has
appropriately dealt with the matter by referring to the only provision that
would be applicable for considering whether the writ petitioner deserved the
increase in pay that the writ petitioner sought.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1271 of 2021
2.The petitioner was engaged as a block co-ordinator on
temporary basis with a consolidated pay of Rs.3,000/-. His pay was
subsequently re-fixed on the basis of the suggestion made by the director of
rural development panchayat raj. No sanctioned post was given to the total
sanitation campaign project to which the petitioner belonged and the
petitioner was engaged on a purely contractual basis.
3.Vide G.O.Ms.No.303 dated October 11, 2017, issued by the
Finance (Pay Cell) Department, an additional honorarium or a further
remuneration or revision of pay was provided for certain categories of
persons engaged by the government. There is no dispute that the matter is
covered by clause 23 of the relevant notification. The clause has been
quoted in the impugned judgment and order dated August 29, 2019.
4.On a reading of such clause contained in the relevant
government order, the single bench came to the conclusion that only certain
categories of sanctioned posts on part-time basis had been identified for the
additional honorarium or pay or further remuneration. As a block
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1271 of 2021
co-ordinator engaged temporarily on contract basis in a non-sanctioned
post, the petitioner could not seek revision of pay in the light of the relevant
government order. The conclusion arrived at by the single bench was
appropriate and cannot be called into question. Clause 23 of the relevant
notification did not permit the appellant herein to obtain any additional
benefit.
5.It is the appellant's further case that in several other districts,
the remuneration or honorarium has been given to similarly placed persons
as the writ petitioner. However, as appropriately recorded in the impugned
order, no further material was placed before the court to show that the post
of the appellant was a sanctioned post covered by clause 23 of the relevant
notification or that there was any other provision under which the appellant
could claim any additional benefit. Merely because certain other
employees, perceived to be similarly placed as the petitioner and posted in
other districts, had been conferred a benefit, it would not entitle the
appellant to the same benefit unless the basis for conferring the benefit is
indicated and the appellant is found entitled to be governed thereby. Article
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1271 of 2021
14 of the Constitution does not operate in the negative sense. If certain
others had been unfairly or unduly conferred any benefit that they may not
have been entitled to, the writ petitioner cannot claim the same benefit by
indicating that he is of the same status as the others who were conferred the
same benefit. It is the basis of entitlement that is of importance. In the
absence of any basis being indicated in this case other than clause 23 of the
relevant government order, no case is made out by the appellant for
claiming any additional benefit. W.A(MD)No.1271 of 2021 is dismissed.
The judgment and order impugned dated August 29, 2019 do not call for
any interference. There will be no order as to costs.
(S.B., CJ.) (M.D., J.)
24.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PS/SSL
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1271 of 2021
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.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1271 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
(Local Administration),
Tamil Nadu Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government.
(Health),
Tamil Nadu Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.
4.The District Collector/
Chairman of DRDA,
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai - 622 001.
5.The Project Director,
District Rural Development Agency,
Pudukkottai - 622 001.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1271 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
PS/SSL
W.A(MD) No.1271 of 2021
24.08.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
