Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs R.Sivakumar .. 1St on 8 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.678 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.678 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD) No.2935 of 2021
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Madurai Ltd.,
Madurai – 625 010.
2.The Chief Financial Officer,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Madurai Ltd.,
Madurai – 625 010. .. Appellants/2nd & 3rd Respondents
Vs.
1.R.Sivakumar .. 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
Chennai. .. 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 09.10.2020, in W.P.(MD)No.737 of
2020.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Senhil Kumaraiah
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.678 of 2021
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.G.R.Sathish
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
Heard Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellants, Mr.G.R.Sathish, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and
Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for Government, appearing
for respondent No.2.
2.The appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation,
Madurai Ltd., is directed against the order dated 09.10.2020, in W.P.(MD)
No.737 of 2020. The said Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in
Ref:Madurai/Law/W.P.(MD) No.10474 of 2019, dated 24.12.2019 and for a
consequential direction upon the appellants to revise the pay scale
attached to the post of Programmer from the date of re-designation as
Programmer in the light of the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.3642 of 2012,
dated 26.03.2012. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the said
decision, held that the case is squarely covered by the said decision and
granted the relief. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed
this Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.678 of 2021
3.The order passed in W.P.(MD) No.3642 of 2012, dated
26.03.2012, has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Appeal No.2337 of 2012, dated 08.09.2014, wherein the
appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli)
Ltd., Nagercoil was dismissed.
4.The learned counsel for the appellants sought to distinguish
the said judgment with regard to the post held by the first respondent
herein and the first respondent in the said Writ Appeal. However, the
legal question is with regard to the nature of duties and responsibilities
and after being specified with the case to apply on the principle equal pay
for equal work. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as
follows:
“9.The contention of the appellant that the first
respondent did not opt for participation in the selection
process for directly being recruitment as Junior Programmer,
has also been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge, in
view of the fact that when the appellant Corporation itself has
chosen to re-designate the first respondent from the post of
Junior Assistant (Computer Programmer) to the post of Junior
Programmer by taking into consideration of his qualification
to the said post, there is no need or necessity for the first
respondent to compete with others and participate in the
selection process for direct recruitment to the post of Junior
Programmer. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
is not in opposition to make any distinction between the
performance or the duties by the first respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.678 of 2021
Computer Programmer in other Corporations. When that
being the position, we are of the view that equal pay for equal
work principle has to be applied to this case, which has been
rightly applied by the learned Single Judge.”
5.The Hon'ble Division Bench has also took note of the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Sivaguru v. State of Tamil Nadu
reported in 2013 (7) SCC 335, wherein it has observed that the
redesignated Health Inspector Grade I ought to have been given the same
scale of pay as Health Inspector Grade I from the date of merger. The
issue having been attained finality in respect of other State Transport
Corporations, a different view cannot taken against the appellants. Thus,
we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
6.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
The appellants are directed to compute the benefits payable to the first
respondent/writ petitioner, consequent upon the dismissal of their appeal
and settle the same within four months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also
dismissed. No costs.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
08.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.678 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.
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.678 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.678 of 2021
08.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
